Movatterモバイル変換


[0]ホーム

URL:


Skip to content

Navigation Menu

Sign in
Appearance settings

Search code, repositories, users, issues, pull requests...

Provide feedback

We read every piece of feedback, and take your input very seriously.

Saved searches

Use saved searches to filter your results more quickly

Sign up
Appearance settings

gh-102327: Extend docs for "url" and "headers" parameters to HTTPConnection.request()#102328

New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to ourterms of service andprivacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub?Sign in to your account

Merged
Mariatta merged 9 commits intopython:mainfromdavidfstr:f/http_url_clarify
May 9, 2023

Conversation

davidfstr
Copy link
Contributor

@davidfstrdavidfstr commentedFeb 28, 2023
edited by Mariatta
Loading

Added example on how to use the HTTPConnection object for making GET request.

Original issue:#102327

arhadthedev reacted with thumbs up emoji
@Mariatta
Copy link
Member

Looks good overall, I think this provides clarity to the doc.

One comment, and I'm being nitpicky here, can we use a different URL in the example, instead of xkcd? Can we use python.org as example? Or other Python-related website.

@davidfstr
Copy link
ContributorAuthor

Can we use python.org as example? Or other Python-related website.

Sure. I'll tentatively put in:https://docs.python.org/3/

That URL satisfies the following useful conditions:

  • is owned by Python contributors
  • uses "https" rather than "http", which promotes "https"
  • uses a non-trivial path "/3/" (rather than just "/")

@merwok
Copy link
Member

What do you think of moving the doc forurl higher up (so that order of doc paragraphs matches order of parameters), and not using a note markup (which grabs attention and takes readers out of normal reading flow)?

The example could be kept at the end, after the documentation of each parameter.

Mariatta reacted with thumbs up emoji

@davidfstr
Copy link
ContributorAuthor

@merwok , makes sense. I'll plan to integrate those revisions later today.

merwok reacted with thumbs up emoji

@davidfstr
Copy link
ContributorAuthor

Revisions integrated. Here's the updated graphical diff of the proposed changes:

Screen Shot 2023-05-02 at 9 26 26 AM

Copy link
Member

@merwokmerwok left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others.Learn more.

This looks pretty great now!

Thanks for the screenshots. Note that pull requests have automatic preview websites for docs, which are even better to see results easily (although sometimes the link is a bit hidden):
https://cpython-previews--102328.org.readthedocs.build/en/102328/library/http.client.html#httpconnection-objects

method *method* and the selector *url*.
method *method* and the request URI *url*. The provided *url* must be
an absolute path to conform with :rfc:`RFC 2616 §5.1.2 <2616#section-5.1.2>`
when using most HTTP methods (like ``GET`` or ``POST``).
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others.Learn more.

This line makes me wonder ifPUT andPATCH are part of «most HTTP methods», so I have to follow the RFC link to see. It seems that yes, onlyOPTIONS * is given as a counter-example. I wonder if there is a way to rephrase that so that casual readers take away that url should nearly always be an absolute path, see link for exact rules.

What do other people think?

Copy link
ContributorAuthor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others.Learn more.

A more specific phrasing would be:

The provided *url* must be an absolute pathto conform with:rfc:`RFC 2616 §5.1.2 <2616#section-5.1.2>`,unless connecting to an HTTP proxy server orusing the ``OPTIONS`` or ``CONNECT`` methods.

And further down:

A:rfc:`Host header <2616#section-14.23>` must be providedto conform with:rfc:`RFC 2616 §5.1.2 <2616#section-5.1.2>`,unless connecting to an HTTP proxy server orusing the ``OPTIONS`` or ``CONNECT`` methods.

A reader would still have to follow the link to determine the actual rules if they were talking to an HTTP proxy server (somewhat common?) or usingOPTIONS/CONNECT (rare?).

Comments?

Copy link
Member

@merwokmerwokMay 3, 2023
edited
Loading

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others.Learn more.

That’s very clear! Theunless clause could even be in parentheses.

I never use proxies but I think there are two cases:

  • explicit proxy, when you sendGET https://authority/path on a connection opened tohttp://proxy
  • transparent proxy, when you use an HTTP library that respects thehttp_proxy orhttps_proxy environment variables

I suppose the note here applies to the first kind only?

Copy link
ContributorAuthor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others.Learn more.

Feedback applied. I think this change is ready to merge!

Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others.Learn more.

Could you reply to the question about proxy? 🙂

Copy link
ContributorAuthor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others.Learn more.

RFC 2616 §1.3 defines a "proxy" as:

An intermediary program which acts as both a server and a client
for the purpose of making requests on behalf of other clients.
Requests are serviced internally or by passing them on, with
possible translation, to other servers. A proxy MUST implement
both the client and server requirements of this specification. A
"transparent proxy" is a proxy that does not modify the request or
response beyond what is required for proxy authentication and
identification. A "non-transparent proxy" is a proxy that modifies
the request or response in order to provide some added service to
the user agent, such as group annotation services, media type
transformation, protocol reduction, or anonymity filtering. Except
where either transparent or non-transparent behavior is explicitly
stated, the HTTP proxy requirements apply to both types of
proxies.

Therefore I speculate that the following requirement from§5.1.2 applies when a Python program attempts to connect toany kind of proxy:

The absoluteURI form is REQUIRED when the request is being made to a
proxy.

I never use proxies myself so I have no empirical experience one way or the other.

Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others.Learn more.

OK, let’s hope the people using proxies know how to handle them!

davidfstr reacted with thumbs up emoji
@merwok
Copy link
Member

Note for the dev who will merge: please edit the commit message to avoid reusing the whole original post here with its questions and screenshot

@davidfstrdavidfstr changed the titlegh-102327: Document "url" parameter to HTTPConnection.request()gh-102327: Extend docs for "url" and "headers" parameters to HTTPConnection.request()May 4, 2023
@davidfstr
Copy link
ContributorAuthor

What are the next steps to move this review forward?

  • This review was previously approved bypython maintainers@Mariatta and@AA-Turner , but that approval was reset when I cleaned up the PR title.
  • This review was also approved by@merwok. (Thanks for the helpful revisions!)

(1) Would it be helpful if I squashed/rebased this commit to the tip of the main branch?

(2) Do I need to summon someone with merge permissions? If so, is there a list of such folks publicly listed?

@Mariatta
Copy link
Member

I will re-review later today from computer. Thanks.

davidfstr reacted with heart emoji

@merwok
Copy link
Member

merwok commentedMay 9, 2023
edited
Loading

The approval was reset by me actually, not a title change!

Note that all PRs for CPython are squash merged, so rebases are not needed. (In fact the devguide recommends against them, as force pushes do weird things for reviewers: ghost notifications, comments losing context)

davidfstr reacted with thumbs up emoji

Copy link
Member

@MariattaMariatta left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others.Learn more.

Thank you!

@MariattaMariatta merged commit7ba6288 intopython:mainMay 9, 2023
@MariattaMariatta added the needs backport to 3.11only security fixes labelMay 9, 2023
@miss-islington
Copy link
Contributor

Thanks@davidfstr for the PR, and@Mariatta for merging it 🌮🎉.. I'm working now to backport this PR to: 3.11.
🐍🍒⛏🤖

@terryjreedyterryjreedy removed the needs backport to 3.11only security fixes labelFeb 18, 2025
Sign up for freeto join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account?Sign in to comment
Reviewers

@merwokmerwokmerwok approved these changes

@MariattaMariattaMariatta approved these changes

@AA-TurnerAA-TurnerAA-Turner approved these changes

Assignees
No one assigned
Labels
docsDocumentation in the Doc dirskip news
Projects
None yet
Milestone
No milestone
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

7 participants
@davidfstr@Mariatta@merwok@miss-islington@AA-Turner@terryjreedy@bedevere-bot

[8]ページ先頭

©2009-2025 Movatter.jp