-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 3.1k
Adjust path_to_url et al. to produce the same results on Python 3.14+ #13423
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 our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
Open
hroncok
wants to merge
1
commit into
pypa:main
Choose a base branch
from
hroncok:python3.14
base: main
Could not load branches
Branch not found: {{ refName }}
Loading
Could not load tags
Nothing to show
Loading
Are you sure you want to change the base?
Some commits from the old base branch may be removed from the timeline,
and old review comments may become outdated.
Open
Changes from all commits
Commits
File filter
Filter by extension
Conversations
Failed to load comments.
Loading
Jump to
Jump to file
Failed to load files.
Loading
Diff view
Diff view
There are no files selected for viewing
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Original file line number | Diff line number | Diff line change |
---|---|---|
@@ -0,0 +1 @@ | ||
Fix remaining test failures in Python 3.14 by adjusting ``path_to_url`` and similar functions. |
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
I am not proud of this :(
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
It wasn't obvious to me how else to do this either 🙁
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Is there something in cpython we can reference here so people reading this later knows what’s going on?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
I can try digging a reference to the change.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Ideally, if we could find something that explained why cpython changed what they did, and why the new result is "correct" and why pip needs something different from the "correct" answer, that would be best (as it would give us a much better basis for informed decisions if this code ever needs to change again).
Unfortunately, I get the impression that there's no real "correct" answer here, and the cpython change was "because it's more consistent with (something or other that pip maybe doesn't even care about)". If so, then documenting what precisely pip is using to base its idea of what "the url for a pathname" is, would be better than nothing.
Worst case scenario would be that there's simply no standard for how to convert a pathname to a URL in general, and it's all just a mess of guesswork and hacks 🙁
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
According to this comment it is this is a result of CPython's attempt to follow RFC 3986, Section 5.2.2: python/cpython#125974 (comment)
I beleive python/cpython#125989 and python/cpython#123273 are the related PRs.
Previous discussions on the "standards" around path to url: #13062 (comment)
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
I didn't get to this today. If you want, feel free to adjust this PR with some comments.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
My main point here is that as a pip maintainer, the
removeprefix('//')
line looks like complete magic - there's no clear reason why it's needed, why it's 3.14+ only, or whyurllib.request
isn't doing the right thing for us in the first place. And I'm not particularly comfortable with a comment that essentially just says that we're compensating for a change in CPython, because that begs the question why are we having to effectively revert the CPython change, rather than raising this as a bug on the stdlib function. I'd like to see something that explains why it isn't a CPython bug, and why in that case we need to alter the behaviour.Having said all of this, I don't think it's fair to expect @hroncok to do all that research and analysis, so if we have to go with a comment that says "CPython changed behaviour in a way that broke our code, so we're patching the result back to what we expect" then I'll live with it.
@barneygale as the author of #13062 (comment) can you shed any light on this?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
I wonder if having a custom wrapper around just
urllib.request.pathname2url
wouldn't be clearer. Call it e.g. path2url_fragment and describe what it should return and that it cannot start with //.