fixes #51

[yelhouti]

No description provided.

[striezel]

How does that fix it? As far as I can see in the commit (92720d9), it only eliminates the extra line

var ext = path.extname(url)

by using path.extname(url) directly instead of ext.

A possible fix should probably look more what @fatihtelis suggested in the comment of the original issue: #51 (comment)

[yelhouti]

@striezel thanks for asking, the way it fixes it is by not running that code if type is set. makes sense to you ?

[striezel]

Yes, I see. 👍
But what if type is not set? It would still run that troublesome piece of code then.

[yelhouti]

@striezel if no type is set it means that it is not something like data:image/png;base64... but rather a real url and therefore should run the code.

[yelhouti]

@mikolalysenko could you please have look a this two ? thanks

[striezel]

@striezel if no type is set it means that it is not something like data:image/png;base64... but rather a real url and therefore should run the code.

Since JavaScript is not a statically typed language, you can never be quite sure what stuff people are passing into a function. So I thought some kind of check might possibly be better there. But if the maintainers are fine with it, so am I.

@mikolalysenko could you please have look a this two ? thanks

According to #49 (comment) mikolalysenko has notifications turned off. So there is no guarantuee this issue might get looked at anytime soon. :(

[yelhouti]

@striezel the idea behind this is that you trust the caller to either provide a URL, or provide a data data:image... and specify the type.
But I agree the code can be improved to check itself for this stuff...
I really doubt that the maintainer will spend time on either adding or reviewing suck code, this is why I proposed the smallest change possible.