Message 212888 - Python tracker

➜

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.

Author	vstinner
Recipients	gvanrossum, orsenthil, serhiy.storchaka, vstinner, yselivanov
Date	2014-03-07.16:19:22
SpamBayes Score	-1.0
Marked as misclassified	Yes
Message-id	<1394209164.36.0.121827858309.issue20271@psf.upfronthosting.co.za>
In-reply-to

Content
Here is a patch for Python 3.5 which breaks backward compatibility: urlparse functions now raise a ValueError if the IPv6 address, port or host is invalid. Examples of invalid URLs: - "HTTP://WWW.PYTHON.ORG:65536/doc/#frag": 65536 is invalid - "http://www.example.net:foo" - "http://::1/" - "http://[127.0.0.1]/" - "http://[host]/" According to unit tests, Python 3.4 is more tolerant: it only raises an error when the port number is read (obj.port) from an URL with an invalid port. There error is not raised when the whole URL is parsed. Is it ok to break backward compatibility?

Here is a patch for Python 3.5 which breaks backward compatibility: urlparse functions now raise a ValueError if the IPv6 address, port or host is invalid.

Examples of invalid URLs:

- "HTTP://WWW.PYTHON.ORG:65536/doc/#frag": 65536 is invalid
- "http://www.example.net:foo"
- "http://::1/"
- "http://[127.0.0.1]/"
- "http://[host]/"

According to unit tests, Python 3.4 is more tolerant: it only raises an error when the port number is read (obj.port) from an URL with an invalid port. There error is not raised when the whole URL is parsed.

Is it ok to break backward compatibility?

History
Date	User	Action	Args
2014-03-07 16:19:24	vstinner	set	recipients: + vstinner, gvanrossum, orsenthil, serhiy.storchaka, yselivanov
2014-03-07 16:19:24	vstinner	set	messageid: <1394209164.36.0.121827858309.issue20271@psf.upfronthosting.co.za>
2014-03-07 16:19:24	vstinner	link	issue20271 messages
2014-03-07 16:19:24	vstinner	create