I can add that omit_default_port: true helped me when getting http://www.jigsaw-online.com/products/tribal-geo-trousers-9056, I got 404 with excon without it. Chrome, curl, wget all had no problems getting to the content. I think it would be good to change the defaults.

+1 for omitting by default. I think I was pretty much about to go insane because of this option. Using Google APIs with Excon failed with OAUTH_TOKEN_INVALID error while every other client worked (console curl, net/http).

PS. According to spec it can be indeed omitted http://www.w3.org/Protocols/rfc2616/rfc2616-sec14.html#sec14.23

According to RFC 7230 the Host header should be generated from the requested URI. Ports only belong there if the requested URI is something like https://example.org:442/some/resource. So this should default to true or the option should be renamed to include_default_port and be set to false.

Yeah, the difficulty comes from Ruby's URI implementation. When it does URI.parse on something it ALWAYS returns an integer port, regardless of whether there was one or not. So it isn't as easy as it could (or perhaps should) be to omit it unless it is included from the outset.

I would like feedback from excon users (particularly those in this thread that have looked at the omit_default_port functionality) over in PR #448 -- it'd be good to know what people think about introducing a breaking change for this. Thanks!

@geemus so I forgot that #port is always populated but here's my toying around in irb a bit:

1.9.3-p448 :001 > require 'uri'
 => true
1.9.3-p448 :002 > u = URI('https://api.github.com/user')
 => #<URI::HTTPS:0x007fcf39a427d8 URL:https://api.github.com/user>
1.9.3-p448 :003 > u.default_port, u.port
=> [443, 443]
1.9.3-p448 :004 > v = URI('https://api.github.com:444/user')
 => #<URI::HTTPS:0x007fcf39a536a0 URL:https://api.github.com:444/user>
1.9.3-p448 :005 > v.default_port
 => 443
1.9.3-p448 :006 > v.port
 => 444

So the easy thing to do is check if parsed.default_port == parsed.port to provide a reliable default. If users then need to include the port they should use an option (like include_default_port) to force it to be included. I found it surprising that I had to use omit_default_port to prevent the port from being included when every other User-Agent I've used has behaved as if omit_default_port were always true.

Yeah. Everything I read at the time I originally implemented things seemed to indicate that there was no harm in either including or omitting the default port. So I thought it would be simpler to not have the exceptional case around defaults, instead simply always including it. And it was simpler, certainly, but has lead to some weird edge cases since though it is technically correct, there are cases where in usage it does not follow this technicality closely.

This issue has been automatically marked stale due to inactivity. It will be closed if no further activity occurs. Thank you for your contributions.

Closing as duplicate of #448