Mark Lawrence breamore...@yahoo.co.uk added the comment:
Can we have the patch committed to 2.7 and 3.1 please.
--
___
Python tracker rep...@bugs.python.org
http://bugs.python.org/issue3704
___
John J Lee jj...@users.sourceforge.net added the comment:
Hmm, I never tested with Python 3, though I assume the forward-port was
straightforward. The patch was created against (2.x) trunk, so indeed it
should be committed there also.
Deselecting 2.6 since I assume no more maintenance
R. David Murray rdmur...@bitdance.com added the comment:
Until 2.6.6 is released bug fixes can still be backported to 2.6 but it is at
the committer's option. Most likely this one won't be.
--
___
Python tracker rep...@bugs.python.org
John J Lee jj...@users.sourceforge.net added the comment:
My patch should be applied.
--
___
Python tracker rep...@bugs.python.org
http://bugs.python.org/issue3704
___
Mark Lawrence breamore...@yahoo.co.uk added the comment:
Patched the unit test, then ran the test before applying the fix which failed,
after applying the fix the test ran successfully. Tested on Windows Vista 32
bit against 2.7 maintainance release. The patches are short and sweet, I see
Gregory P. Smith g...@krypto.org added the comment:
jjlee's issue3704.patch has been committed to py3k (3.2) in r82985. It could
still use backporting to 2.6, 2.7 and 3.1.
--
resolution: - accepted
versions: -Python 3.2
___
Python tracker
Mark Lawrence breamore...@yahoo.co.uk added the comment:
Could we please have an update from people who have been involved on this issue
as to whether it can be taken forward, closed as to no longer relevant, or
whatever.
--
nosy: +BreamoreBoy
___
John J Lee jj...@users.sourceforge.net added the comment:
What specific breakage do you expect resulting from my patch being backported?
There is no behaviour change here, except to the minimal extent that all bug
fixes involve behaviour change. This seems a clear-cut backport candidate.
R. David Murray rdmur...@bitdance.com added the comment:
I don't expect anything; I had written that it looked OK to me but apparently I
accidentally deleted that text before posting. But I'm not someone who has
ever programmed using cookielib so I wouldn't expect my opinion to count for
too
R. David Murray rdmur...@bitdance.com added the comment:
There is a reason, and that is that it may break existing code in the field
relying on the current behavior. This is (unfortunately) true regardless of
whether the function is public or private, though the fact that it is
ostensibly
R. David Murray rdmur...@bitdance.com added the comment:
Hmm. I didn't read your comment carefully enough before I replied. I think
you are saying that the bug fix is confined to the routine in question and
doesn't change even its API, in which case the nature of the function doesn't
come
John J Lee jj...@users.sourceforge.net added the comment:
I'll upload a patch when I'm back home (bugs.python.org went down yesterday).
Will turn docstring into comment.
--
___
Python tracker rep...@bugs.python.org
http://bugs.python.org/issue3704
John J Lee jj...@users.sourceforge.net added the comment:
Just re-read your comment, Tres. Since when do docstrings determine whether a
stdlib function is public? If it's documented in the docs, it's public. If
not, it's not. This function isn't, so it's not public. It's also not in
Changes by John J Lee jj...@users.sourceforge.net:
Added file: http://bugs.python.org/file17285/issue3704.patch
___
Python tracker rep...@bugs.python.org
http://bugs.python.org/issue3704
___
John J Lee jj...@users.sourceforge.net added the comment:
Didn't bother changing docstring to comment, since that would be inconsistent
with rest of module.
--
___
Python tracker rep...@bugs.python.org
http://bugs.python.org/issue3704
John J Lee jj...@users.sourceforge.net added the comment:
FWIW, the certain semantics that request_path promises are 1. that it
returns the RFC 2965 request-URI (which has never been true -- it returns the
path component of the request-URI instead) and 2. that that request-URI is as
defined
John J Lee jj...@users.sourceforge.net added the comment:
It looks to me that it's just request_path that's wrong, so no need to add
extra arguments to that function. It should discard the query and fragment
(still keeping the parameters -- using urlparse.urlsplit instead of
Tres Seaver tsea...@agendaless.com added the comment:
As long as we don't care about preserving backward compatibility, we
could indeed just change the behavior of 'request_path'. It isn't
documented as an API of the cookielib module, but it does have a
docstring which promises certain
Tres Seaver tsea...@agendaless.com added the comment:
I can confirm that the patch applies cleanly to the release26-maint
branch, and that the updated test fails without the updated
implementation.
However, the entire approach seems wrong to me: the patched method
has just called
Changes by Daniel Diniz aja...@gmail.com:
--
components: +Library (Lib) -None
stage: - patch review
versions: -Python 2.5
___
Python tracker rep...@bugs.python.org
http://bugs.python.org/issue3704
___
John J Lee [EMAIL PROTECTED] added the comment:
Do we have an RFC 3986 URI parser in the stdlib now? It would be better
to use that if so, but I don't see one. Failing that, an implementation
of the relevant part of that RFC is only about four lines of code, so
that would be better than
Senthil [EMAIL PROTECTED] added the comment:
John, issue3647 tries relative url parsing and joins to be RFC3986
compliance.
___
Python tracker [EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://bugs.python.org/issue3704
___
Senthil [EMAIL PROTECTED] added the comment:
The patch and tests look fine to me, Gregory. I verified it against the
trunk. Should not we have it for py3k as well?
--
nosy: +orsenthil
___
Python tracker [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Gregory P. Smith [EMAIL PROTECTED] added the comment:
yep it applies to all releases. anyways, it won't make 2.6/3.0 but it
can be put into 2.5.3/2.6.1/3.0.1.
--
versions: +Python 3.0
___
Python tracker [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Changes by Gregory P. Smith [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
--
keywords: +patch
Added file: http://bugs.python.org/file11282/cookielib.diff
___
Python tracker [EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://bugs.python.org/issue3704
___
Gregory P. Smith [EMAIL PROTECTED] added the comment:
attached is a patch with the suggested fix along with a unit test.
--
assignee: - gregory.p.smith
keywords: +needs review
nosy: +gregory.p.smith
priority: - normal
Added file:
New submission from Andy Kilpatrick [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
cookielib doesn't handle URLs like http://server/script?
err=/base/error.htmlok=/base/ok.html, as
CookieJar::_cookie_from_cookie_tuple uses rfind(/) to strip off the
end of the URL, returning http://server/script?
27 matches
Mail list logo
