This issue tracker has been migrated to GitHub, and is currently read-only.
For more information, see the GitHub FAQs in the Python's Developer Guide.

Title: RFC2732 support for urlparse (IPv6 addresses)
Type: enhancement Stage: resolved
Components: Library (Lib) Versions: Python 3.2, Python 2.7
Status: closed Resolution: fixed
Dependencies: Superseder:
Assigned To: orsenthil Nosy List: Keegan.Carruthers-Smith, anacrolix, benjamin.peterson, eric.araujo, jjlee, ndim, orsenthil, pitrou, r.david.murray, sergiomb2, tlocke
Priority: normal Keywords: easy, patch

Created on 2008-05-27 20:40 by ndim, last changed 2022-04-11 14:56 by admin. This issue is now closed.

File name Uploaded Description Edit
python-urlparse-rfc2732-fix.patch ndim, 2008-05-27 20:40 preliminary urlparse fix, requires more thought
python-urlparse-rfc2732-rfc-list.patch ndim, 2008-05-27 20:41 update RFC list on top of
python-urlparse-rfc2732-test.patch ndim, 2008-05-27 20:42 test cases with RFC2732 urls to parse tlocke, 2010-04-11 23:09 Patch to and
urlparse-module-header.diff orsenthil, 2010-04-12 06:42
issue2987-final.patch orsenthil, 2010-04-15 15:58
issue2987-bad_url_checks.diff orsenthil, 2010-04-17 18:14
Messages (25)
msg67430 - (view) Author: Hans Ulrich Niedermann (ndim) Date: 2008-05-27 20:40
The urlparse module's ways of splitting the location into hostname and
port breaks with RFC2732 style URIs with IPv6 addresses in them:

>>> import urlparse
>>> urlparse.urlparse('http://[::1]:80/').hostname
>>> urlparse.urlparse('http://[::1]:80/').port
Traceback (most recent call last):
  File "<stdin>", line 1, in <module>
  File "/usr/lib/python2.5/", line 116, in port
    return int(port, 10)
ValueError: invalid literal for int() with base 10: ':1]:80'

A simple fix is attached, but probably requires a little more thought.
msg67431 - (view) Author: Hans Ulrich Niedermann (ndim) Date: 2008-05-27 20:47
I have written this patch because urlparse could not retrieve the
hostname or port components of URIs such as
http://[::ffff:]/ or http://[dead:beef::1]:8888/

This problem happens with Python 2.5.1 in Fedora 9, and I have also
found it in Python's SVN trunk/ and release25-maint/ source code.

It still needs some polishing and thinking: See the places marked
FIXME, but probably also others. One would not want an inconsistent
API feel with respect to IPv6 address handling.

Might require some more comprehensive thought about how Python wants
to handle networks other-than-IPv4, exceeding the scope of a simple
patch to

On a not-totally-unrelated note, someone should examine whether IRIs[1]
can fit into, or whether they need e.g. a separate with an adapted API.

[1] RFC 3987 - Internationalized Resource Identifiers (IRIs)
    M. Duerst, M. Suignard, January 2005
msg98314 - (view) Author: Sérgio (sergiomb2) Date: 2010-01-26 04:17
Hi, with python-2.6.2-2.fc12.i686

In: x =""
In: urlparse.urljoin(x, '07.11.2009-9:54:12-1.jpg')
Out: '07.11.2009-9:54:12-1.jpg' !?

In: urlparse.urljoin(x, './07.11.2009-9:54:12-1.jpg')
Out: ''

is wrong

think about that please
msg98315 - (view) Author: Senthil Kumaran (orsenthil) * (Python committer) Date: 2010-01-26 04:22
okay, this should be easy to address. But the more important part is RFC compliance so that this simple change does not break many other things in the wild.
msg102874 - (view) Author: Tony Locke (tlocke) Date: 2010-04-11 19:32
I've created a patch for against the py3k branch, and I've also included ndim's test cases in that patch file.

When returning the host name of an IPv6 literal, I don't include the surrounding '[' and ']'. For example, parsing http://[::1]:5432/foo/ gives the host name '::1'.
msg102876 - (view) Author: Éric Araujo (eric.araujo) * (Python committer) Date: 2010-04-11 19:38
Seems sensible: Delimiters are not part of components.
msg102881 - (view) Author: Antoine Pitrou (pitrou) * (Python committer) Date: 2010-04-11 20:32
I think parsing should be a bit more careful. For example, what happens when you give 'http://dead:beef::]/foo/' as input (note the missing opening bracket)?
msg102882 - (view) Author: Antoine Pitrou (pitrou) * (Python committer) Date: 2010-04-11 20:34
By the way, updating the RFC list as done in python-urlparse-rfc2732-rfc-list.patch is also a good idea.
msg102884 - (view) Author: Éric Araujo (eric.araujo) * (Python committer) Date: 2010-04-11 20:44
Isn’t “http://dead:beef::]/foo/“ and invalid URI?

Regarding doc, see also #5650.
msg102886 - (view) Author: Antoine Pitrou (pitrou) * (Python committer) Date: 2010-04-11 20:54
> Isn’t “http://dead:beef::]/foo/“ and invalid URI?

That's the point, it shouldn't parse as a valid one IMO.
msg102911 - (view) Author: Tony Locke (tlocke) Date: 2010-04-11 23:09
Regarding the RFC list issue, I've posted a new patch with a new RFC list that combines ndim's list and the comments from #5650.

Pitrou argues that http://dead:beef::]/foo/ should fail because it's a malformed URL. My response would be that the parse() function has historically assumed that a URL is well formed, and so this change to accommodate IPv6 should continue to assume the URL is well formed.

I'd say that a separate bug should be raised if it's thought that parse() should be changed to check that any URL is well-formed.
msg102915 - (view) Author: Senthil Kumaran (orsenthil) * (Python committer) Date: 2010-04-12 05:10
With respect to msg98314 ( referenced in this bug, which I thought is easy to handle, does not appear so. It is bit tricky.

The problem is the relative url is given of the format '07.11.2009-9:54:12-1.jpg' and urlparse wrongly assumes that it is VALID url with the scheme as 07.11.2009-9 ( Surprisingly, this falls under valid characters for a URL Scheme, but we know that there no url scheme like that).

But when you give ./07.11.2009-9, ./ is identified a relative path and urljoin happens properly. 

My inclination for this specific msg9814, is the allow the user to give the proper path like ./07.11.2009-9 or use urljoin from different directory, images/07.11.2009-9 and this should handle it.

This date-time relative url is not a typical scenario, but for  typical scnerios, urlparse behaves as expected.

>>> x = 'http://a.b.c'
>>> urlparse.urljoin(x,'foo')
>>> urlparse.urljoin(x,'./foo')

I shall provide my comments on the IPv6 parse in next msg.
msg102920 - (view) Author: Senthil Kumaran (orsenthil) * (Python committer) Date: 2010-04-12 06:42
After spending a sufficient amount of time looking at patches and the RFC 2732, I tend to agree with the patch provided by tlocke. It does cover the behavior for parsing IPv6 URL with '[' hostname ']'. RFC 2732 is very short and just says that hostname in the IPv6 should not have '[' and ']' characters. The patch does just that, which is fine.

If hard pressed on detecting invalid IPv6 , I would add and extra 

+        if "[" in netloc and "]" in netloc:
+                return netloc.split("]")[0][1:].lower()
+        elif "[" in netloc or "]" in netloc:
+                raise ValueError("Invalid IPv6 URL")

Which should take care of Invalid IPv6 urls as discussed in this bug.

- Any comments on this?

Also regarding the urlparse header docs, (it was long pending on me and sorry), here is a patch for current one for review. When we address this bug, I shall include RFC 2732 as well in the list.
msg103065 - (view) Author: Keegan Carruthers-Smith (Keegan.Carruthers-Smith) Date: 2010-04-13 17:11
Just thought I'd point out that RFC2732 was obsoleted by RFC3986
msg103066 - (view) Author: Éric Araujo (eric.araujo) * (Python committer) Date: 2010-04-13 17:18

Thanks for the precision. This particular topic is discussed on #5650, feel free to help there!

Better update the code before the doc, though.

msg103067 - (view) Author: Senthil Kumaran (orsenthil) * (Python committer) Date: 2010-04-13 17:24
Actually, this bug is just for parsing the IPv6 url. We are having the
right set of patches in the bug. I shall commit it soon.
The RFC part is separate and we will slowly achieve a good compliance
with STD 66.
msg103226 - (view) Author: Senthil Kumaran (orsenthil) * (Python committer) Date: 2010-04-15 15:58
Final patch with inclusion of detecting invalid urls at netloc and hostname level, tests and NEWS entry.
msg103255 - (view) Author: Benjamin Peterson (benjamin.peterson) * (Python committer) Date: 2010-04-15 20:59
This is ok with me.
msg103285 - (view) Author: Senthil Kumaran (orsenthil) * (Python committer) Date: 2010-04-16 02:47
Committed into trunk in revision 80101
msg103288 - (view) Author: Senthil Kumaran (orsenthil) * (Python committer) Date: 2010-04-16 03:07
merged into py3k in revision 80102 and release31-maint in revision 80103.

Thanks for the patches, Tony and Hans. I have acknowledged it in NEWS file too.
msg103312 - (view) Author: Senthil Kumaran (orsenthil) * (Python committer) Date: 2010-04-16 11:29
Reverted the check-in made to 3.1 maint (in r80104). Features should not go in there.
msg103410 - (view) Author: R. David Murray (r.david.murray) * (Python committer) Date: 2010-04-17 16:47
I posted this to the checkins list, but for reference, the following invalid URL should be added to the test cases:

msg103419 - (view) Author: Senthil Kumaran (orsenthil) * (Python committer) Date: 2010-04-17 18:14
Moving the Bad URL check to a higher level can be detect the bad urls much better. Once I the netloc is parsed and obtained, invalid URL can be checked. I am attaching an update with the new test included.
If you have any comments, please let me know.
msg103430 - (view) Author: R. David Murray (r.david.murray) * (Python committer) Date: 2010-04-17 20:44
I don't know how deep you want to get into detecting invalid URIs, but with the new patch this one causes a parsing error that is probably worth dealing with:


Maybe a reasonable set of checks would be (in hostname) that if the part of the netloc after the @ contains a ']' or a '[', then it must start with a [ and either end with a ] or contain a ']:'.

I can also mess up your new checks with something like this:


or even:


although those don't fail, they just faithfully produce the nonsensical results implicit in the invalid urls.  I think the above check logic in hostname would catch them, but it wouldn't catch this one:


That may be OK, though, since as you noted earlier we aren't doing full URI validation.

Oh, and I notice that your test only covers the 'fast' path code, it doesn't exercise the general URI logic.

(Sorry I didn't review this issue earlier.)
msg103753 - (view) Author: Senthil Kumaran (orsenthil) * (Python committer) Date: 2010-04-20 20:51
I added an additional invalid test which David pointed out and made changes to invalid url checking code. I moved it more higher level.

- The reason for doing this is, invalid url test code (which is very specific for '[' enclosed ']' ipv6 url is concentrated at a single place). We can deal with parsing separately from check.

Now, other forms of Invalid URLs are possible as David points out (and possibly more too), but leaving it is better as it would unnecessarily add syntax-checks at various different places (instead of a single place), without much of value add.  Dealing with Valid URLs and a parse logic checking should be fine.

commits: trunk - r80277 and py3k - r80278
Date User Action Args
2022-04-11 14:56:35adminsetgithub: 47236
2011-01-20 09:49:49anacrolixsetnosy: + anacrolix
2010-04-20 20:51:37orsenthilsetmessages: + msg103753
2010-04-17 20:44:51r.david.murraysetmessages: + msg103430
2010-04-17 18:14:03orsenthilsetfiles: + issue2987-bad_url_checks.diff

messages: + msg103419
2010-04-17 16:47:44r.david.murraysetnosy: + r.david.murray
messages: + msg103410
2010-04-16 11:29:31orsenthilsetmessages: + msg103312
2010-04-16 03:07:58orsenthilsetstatus: open -> closed
resolution: accepted -> fixed
messages: + msg103288

stage: patch review -> resolved
2010-04-16 02:47:31orsenthilsetmessages: + msg103285
2010-04-15 20:59:23benjamin.petersonsetmessages: + msg103255
2010-04-15 15:58:30orsenthilsetfiles: + issue2987-final.patch

messages: + msg103226
2010-04-13 17:24:08orsenthilsetmessages: + msg103067
2010-04-13 17:18:17eric.araujosetmessages: + msg103066
2010-04-13 17:11:41Keegan.Carruthers-Smithsetnosy: + Keegan.Carruthers-Smith
messages: + msg103065
2010-04-12 06:42:07orsenthilsetfiles: + urlparse-module-header.diff
resolution: accepted
messages: + msg102920
2010-04-12 05:11:00orsenthilsetmessages: + msg102915
2010-04-11 23:15:29pitrousetnosy: + benjamin.peterson
2010-04-11 23:09:10tlockesetfiles: +

messages: + msg102911
2010-04-11 22:50:37tlockesetfiles: -
2010-04-11 20:54:23pitrousetmessages: + msg102886
title: RFC2732 support for urlparse (e.g. http:// -> RFC2732 support for urlparse (IPv6 addresses)
2010-04-11 20:44:48eric.araujosetmessages: + msg102884
title: RFC2732 support for urlparse (e.g. http://[::1]:80/) -> RFC2732 support for urlparse (e.g. http://
2010-04-11 20:34:20pitrousetmessages: + msg102882
2010-04-11 20:32:46pitrousetnosy: + pitrou
messages: + msg102881
2010-04-11 19:38:39eric.araujosetnosy: + eric.araujo
messages: + msg102876
2010-04-11 19:32:49tlockesetfiles: +
versions: + Python 3.2
nosy: + tlocke

messages: + msg102874
2010-01-26 04:22:37orsenthilsetassignee: orsenthil

messages: + msg98315
nosy: + orsenthil
2010-01-26 04:17:30sergiomb2setnosy: + sergiomb2
messages: + msg98314
2009-04-22 17:24:41ajaksu2setpriority: normal
keywords: + easy
2009-02-13 01:44:17ajaksu2setnosy: + jjlee
stage: patch review
versions: + Python 2.7, - Python 2.6, Python 2.5
2008-05-27 20:47:33ndimsetmessages: + msg67431
2008-05-27 20:42:08ndimsetfiles: + python-urlparse-rfc2732-test.patch
2008-05-27 20:41:32ndimsetfiles: + python-urlparse-rfc2732-rfc-list.patch
2008-05-27 20:40:36ndimcreate