Well, this thread seems to be top-posted.... so...
Why not provide _urlopen_with_scary_keyword_parameter as the
monkey-patch option?
So after the (global to the module) monkeypatch, they would _still_ have
to add the keyword parameter.
On 9/8/2014 4:31 PM, Guido van Rossum wrote:
I still prefer having a parameter on urlopen (or thereabouts) -- it
feels wrong to make it easier to change this globally than on a
per-call basis, and if you don't understand monkey-patching, it's
impossible to debug if you put the patch in the wrong place.
For the poor soul who has a script with many
urlopen("https"//<whatever>") calls, well, they probably don't mind
the busywork of editing each and every one of them.
I'm fine with giving the actual keyword parameter a scary-sounding
ugly name.
On Mon, Sep 8, 2014 at 3:48 PM, Donald Stufft <don...@stufft.io
<mailto:don...@stufft.io>> wrote:
On Sep 8, 2014, at 6:43 PM, Nick Coghlan <ncogh...@gmail.com
<mailto:ncogh...@gmail.com>> wrote:
On 9 Sep 2014 08:30, "Donald Stufft" <don...@stufft.io
<mailto:don...@stufft.io>> wrote:
>
> If someone wants to do this, can’t they write their own 6 line
function?
Unfortunately not, as the domain knowledge required to know what
those six lines should look like is significant.
Keeping the old unsafe behaviour around with a more obviously
dangerous name is much simpler than explaining to people "Here,
copy this chunk of code you don't understand".
If we were starting with a blank slate there's no way we'd offer
such a thing, but as Jim pointed out, we do want to make it
relatively easy for Standard Operating Environment maintainers to
hack around it if necessary.
Cheers,
Nick.
>
> import ssl
> import urllib.request
> _real_urlopen = urllib.request.urlopen
> def _unverified(*args, **kwargs):
> if not kwargs.keys() & {“context”, “cafile”, “capath”,
“cadefault”}:
> ctx = ssl.create_default_context()
> ctx.verify_mode = CERT_NONE
> ctx.verify_hostname = False
> kwargs[“context”] = ctx
> return _real_urlopen(*args, **kwargs)
>
> ---
> Donald Stufft
> PGP: 7C6B 7C5D 5E2B 6356 A926 F04F 6E3C BCE9 3372 DCFA
>
Why isn’t documentation with appropriate red warnings a suitable
place if we really must have it? That sounds like a much better
solution that some weird function people monkeypatch. It gives
them more control over things (maybe they have a valid certificate
chain, but an invalid host name!), it’ll work across all Python
implementations, and most importantly, it gives us a place where
there is some long form location to be like “yea you really
probably don’t want to be doing this” in big red letters.
Overall I’m -1 on either offering the function or documenting it
at all, but if we must do something then I think documentation is
more than enough.
_______________________________________________
Python-Dev mailing list
Python-Dev@python.org
https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-dev
Unsubscribe:
https://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com
