Rewrite: use escaped path

[TP-O]

Fix #5278

Using unescaped path in rewriting makes me confuse which part after ? is a query if the path contains %3F, so I thought it would be better to use an escaped path.

[CLAassistant]

All committers have signed the CLA.

[mholt]

Thanks; this will need careful review, and in consideration with #5438.

[mholt]

Honestly, I like the change. It's simpler code and all the exists tests still pass, along with two new test cases.

Do the test cases represent the original issue sufficiently?

Additionally, I wonder if @wlonkly could chime in and confirm that this patch works for you.

This is one of the few areas of the code that is more heavily tested, so I guess we can be confident with this, I'm just wary of unexpected edge cases especially if they relate to security issues 🙃

[TP-O]

Honestly, I like the change. It's simpler code and all the exists tests still pass, along with two new test cases.

Do the test cases represent the original issue sufficiently?

Additionally, I wonder if @wlonkly could chime in and confirm that this patch works for you.

This is one of the few areas of the code that is more heavily tested, so I guess we can be confident with this, I'm just wary of unexpected edge cases especially if they relate to security issues upside_down_face

I think these test cases make sure the Rewrite function distinguishes between %3F and ? when checking for query string (which causes to the issue) after replacing.

[mholt]

Thanks again for the contribution! If there are any issues reported we'll let you know 👍