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: urllib.parse.urlparse and urlsplit not raising ValueError for bad port
Type: enhancement Stage: resolved
Components: Library (Lib) Versions: Python 3.8
Status: closed Resolution: fixed
Dependencies: Superseder:
Assigned To: Nosy List: agnosticdev, bbayles, berker.peksag, eric.smith, jonathan-lp
Priority: normal Keywords: patch

Created on 2018-03-09 08:24 by jonathan-lp, last changed 2022-04-11 14:58 by admin. This issue is now closed.

Pull Requests
URL Status Linked Edit
PR 6077 closed agnosticdev, 2018-03-11 14:57
PR 6078 merged agnosticdev, 2018-03-11 15:06
Messages (19)
msg313475 - (view) Author: Jonathan (jonathan-lp) Date: 2018-03-09 08:24
(Confirmed in 2.7.14, 3.5.4, and 3.6.3)

I have this really bad URL from a crawl:
"http://Server=sde; Service=sde:oracle$sde:oracle11g:geopp; User=bodem; Version=SDE.DEFAULT"

if I try and parse it with wither urlparse or urlsplit it works - no errors. But when I try and get the port, I get a ValueError.

> from urllib.parse import urlparse
> r = urlparse('http://Server=sde; Service=sde:oracle$sde:oracle11g:geopp; User=bodem; Version=SDE.DEFAULT')
ParseResult(scheme='http', netloc='Server=sde; Service=sde:oracle$sde:oracle11g:geopp; User=bodem; Version=SDE.DEFAULT', path='', params='', query='', fragment='')

Ok, great, now to use the result:
> print(r.port)
Traceback (most recent call last):
  File "<input>", line 1, in <module>
  File "E:\Software\_libs\Python36\lib\urllib\", line 167, in port
    port = int(port, 10)
ValueError: invalid literal for int() with base 10: 'oracle$sde:oracle11g:geopp; User=bodem; Version=SDE.DEFAULT'

I'm not a Python Guru, but to me at least it's inconsistent with how every other Python Function works. In all other builtin functions I've used it would fail with the exception when I ran the function, not when I try and get the results. This caused a good few minutes of head-scratching while I tried to debug why my try/except wasn't catching it.

This inconsistency makes the results more difficult to use. Now a user needs to wrap all calls to the *results* in a try/except, or write an entire function just to "read" the results into a won't-except tuple/dict. Seems sub-optimal.

(May relate to:
msg313477 - (view) Author: Jonathan (jonathan-lp) Date: 2018-03-09 09:15
Arguably the same logic applies to out-of-range ports:

> a = urlsplit('')
> a.port
Traceback (most recent call last):
  File "<input>", line 1, in <module>
  File "E:\Software\_libs\Python36\lib\urllib\", line 169, in port
    raise ValueError("Port out of range 0-65535")
ValueError: Port out of range 0-65535
msg313600 - (view) Author: Matt Eaton (agnosticdev) * Date: 2018-03-11 15:07
I agree.  I think an explicit exception message would be appropriate when the cast fails to cast from string to int in int(post, 10).

Putting in a PR to fix this now.
msg313928 - (view) Author: Eric V. Smith (eric.smith) * (Python committer) Date: 2018-03-16 01:29
Wouldn't we be better off to catch this error at parse time, instead of just improve the error message when .port is called?

I'm not sure why port is a property and not just computed. Maybe the least intrusive way of doing this would be to just evaluate self.port after the parsing is completed?
msg313929 - (view) Author: Eric V. Smith (eric.smith) * (Python committer) Date: 2018-03-16 01:30
Although having said that, we probably can't make that change for 2.7. And maybe it's even too big a change for 3.8.
msg313930 - (view) Author: Matt Eaton (agnosticdev) * Date: 2018-03-16 01:56
"Wouldn't we be better off to catch this error at parse time, instead of just improve the error message when .port is called?"

I think there could be a case to be made about catching and dealing with this error in urlparse() / urlsplit() instead of displaying an error when port property is used.  I think that approaching it this way would cut right to the problem and alleviate carrying around a potentially bad port value.  However, if the port error was caught during parsing but the url, scheme, etc.. values were still valid, are we taking away something from the user by raising the error too soon?  Just a thought.
msg313931 - (view) Author: Eric V. Smith (eric.smith) * (Python committer) Date: 2018-03-16 02:40
Yes, you're right, it can't be changed. And .port is documented as raising ValueError, so it's all working correctly. I think improving the ValueError message, as the PR does, is as good as we can do.
msg313944 - (view) Author: Jonathan (jonathan-lp) Date: 2018-03-16 10:34
Interesting conversation

As I see it, there are two ways to solve this, both discussed above:
A) Python can compute and ValueError at parse-time
B) Python can ValueError at property-call time. (Current method)

But both have Advantages/Disadvantages.
A - Pros) - The function is more consistent with all the other Python builtins (well, the one's I've dealt with).
A - Pros) - Not carrying around a "bad" port.
A - Cons) - As Matt suggests, we could be "taking something from the user" because they may want the other values. (although in that case, the current semi-related behaviour: "Unmatched square brackets in the netloc attribute will raise a ValueError" is also potentially taking something from the user).

B - Pros) - User gets the other values even if they don't get the port.
B - Cons) - User needs to have more Try/Excepts in the code (whereever you may access the property), or to write their own wrapper function.

Given the above, of the those options I still think option (A) is better. The other values may have a reduced worth if the port is invalid (depending on the user's goal).

May I suggest a third option:
C) A flag for urlsplit/urlparse to indicate we don't want to do port validation, and to just return whatever it thinks is there. ( would return 3293849038. would return "gibberish" etc). 

This way the user can choose what behaviour they want with the bad port and test the value of the port themselves if they care (something I was going to do anyway before I discovered it was included in the builtin). Some of the url quoting functions have a similar flag ("errors") for handling bad data transparently or not.
msg313947 - (view) Author: Matt Eaton (agnosticdev) * Date: 2018-03-16 11:15
Jonathan, thank you very much for your thoughts I appreciate the pros and cons of each option.

In regards to your option C, if we provided a flag to optionally raise the error in urlsplit and urlparse were you thinking the default flag to be set to True?  

For example:

def urlparse(url, scheme='', allow_fragments=True, port_validation=True):

def urlsplit(url, scheme='', allow_fragments=True, port_validation=True):
msg313996 - (view) Author: Matt Eaton (agnosticdev) * Date: 2018-03-17 12:18
One more question I would raise based upon a point made earlier by Eric is if option C would be too large of a change for 3.8?  Any thoughts on this?
msg313998 - (view) Author: Eric V. Smith (eric.smith) * (Python committer) Date: 2018-03-17 12:25
For backward comparability, option C would have to default to not raising an exception. Which would limit it's usefulness, but that's the way it goes.
msg313999 - (view) Author: Matt Eaton (agnosticdev) * Date: 2018-03-17 12:32
This is a very good point, Eric.  For backwards compatibility we would have to set the default parameter to false, so we be in the same state we are today by default.  Knowing this my vote would be to go with the improvements to the ValueError message when using .port as the current PR does now.
msg314002 - (view) Author: Jonathan (jonathan-lp) Date: 2018-03-17 12:45
Thanks for the thoughts.
If only the exception message changes, that doesn't really address the issue that caused me to raise this - namely that it seems to be inconsistent with how almost every other Python builtin function I've used works. I have to defer to you folks who know how feasible changing any of that is - I can see your reasoning.

One quick observation - on glancing over the patch, it seems to only be for urlparse, but this happens to urlsplit too. Or does urlsplit import from that function (as I said, I only glanced).
msg314005 - (view) Author: Matt Eaton (agnosticdev) * Date: 2018-03-17 13:13
Yes, my goal for the patch was to provide a more explicit error message for this situation and to provide a low surface area change to the overall source, knowing that there are future development goals and backward compatibility to keep in mind.  That way the patch would be a first step in providing more explicit information when a developer would run into this situation and hopefully improving the current situation at hand.

The new ValueError message raised in this patch does work for both urlparse and urlsplit.
msg314133 - (view) Author: Berker Peksag (berker.peksag) * (Python committer) Date: 2018-03-20 06:41
New changeset 2cb4661707818cfd92556e7fdf9068a993577002 by Berker Peksag (Matt Eaton) in branch 'master':
bpo-33034: Improve exception message when cast fails for {Parse,Split}Result.port (GH-6078)
msg314139 - (view) Author: Berker Peksag (berker.peksag) * (Python committer) Date: 2018-03-20 13:00
The problem with adding a port_validation argument is that the port attribute is not the only thing that is computed lazily. There is also hostname, username, password attributes etc.

I think the best way would be introducing a new API with more strict parsing rules. For example:

    from urllib.parse URL

    url = URL('http://Server=sde; Service=sde:oracle').parse()

would raise a ValueError earlier than urlparse() and return a immutable namedtuple.

Such an API can be designed as a standalone module first and then can be added into the existing urllib.parse module. I'd personally happy to review and discuss such a modern and user friendly API in the standard library.

I think Eric has explained the current situation perfectly and we can now close this issue. We can create a new issue or a new python-ideas thread when or if we have a prototype of a new API.

Thank you, everyone!
msg314140 - (view) Author: Matt Eaton (agnosticdev) * Date: 2018-03-20 13:06
Berker and Eric, thank you very much.  I really like the idea of introducing a new API with more strict parsing rules for this situation. I would be willing to put some ideas down on a first pass at this.
msg314725 - (view) Author: Matt Eaton (agnosticdev) * Date: 2018-03-30 22:50
I was able to get some time together today and created a rough draft for the idea that you had Berker on introducing a new API with more strict parsing rules.

This will allow the ValueError to be raised when the URL is parsed rather than when the computed property is used.  

Jonathan, this will help address your concern on the consistency of when the error message is raised.

I added the rough draft on my Github account here:

Please take a look and let me know what you think.
You can contact me directly to continue the conversation at my email:
msg314877 - (view) Author: Matt Eaton (agnosticdev) * Date: 2018-04-03 11:02
Wanted to check in on this to see if there was any feedback on this topic?
Date User Action Args
2022-04-11 14:58:58adminsetgithub: 77215
2018-04-03 11:02:55agnosticdevsetmessages: + msg314877
2018-03-30 22:50:15agnosticdevsetmessages: + msg314725
2018-03-20 13:06:43agnosticdevsetmessages: + msg314140
2018-03-20 13:00:01berker.peksagsetstatus: open -> closed

components: + Library (Lib)
versions: + Python 3.8, - Python 2.7, Python 3.5, Python 3.6
messages: + msg314139
type: enhancement
resolution: fixed
stage: patch review -> resolved
2018-03-20 06:41:39berker.peksagsetmessages: + msg314133
2018-03-17 13:13:12agnosticdevsetmessages: + msg314005
2018-03-17 12:45:29jonathan-lpsetmessages: + msg314002
2018-03-17 12:32:17agnosticdevsetmessages: + msg313999
2018-03-17 12:25:15eric.smithsetmessages: + msg313998
2018-03-17 12:18:45agnosticdevsetmessages: + msg313996
2018-03-16 11:15:41agnosticdevsetmessages: + msg313947
2018-03-16 10:34:50jonathan-lpsetmessages: + msg313944
2018-03-16 02:40:47eric.smithsetmessages: + msg313931
2018-03-16 01:56:05agnosticdevsetmessages: + msg313930
2018-03-16 01:30:16eric.smithsetmessages: + msg313929
2018-03-16 01:29:21eric.smithsetnosy: + berker.peksag, eric.smith
messages: + msg313928
2018-03-11 15:07:15agnosticdevsetnosy: + agnosticdev
messages: + msg313600
2018-03-11 15:06:52agnosticdevsetpull_requests: + pull_request5838
2018-03-11 14:57:23agnosticdevsetkeywords: + patch
stage: patch review
pull_requests: + pull_request5837
2018-03-11 00:48:01bbaylessetnosy: + bbayles
2018-03-09 09:15:35jonathan-lpsetmessages: + msg313477
2018-03-09 08:24:24jonathan-lpsetversions: + Python 3.5
2018-03-09 08:24:01jonathan-lpcreate