Issue1062060
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.
Created on 2004-11-07 20:15 by irmen, last changed 2022-04-11 14:56 by admin. This issue is now closed.
Files | ||||
---|---|---|---|---|
File name | Uploaded | Description | Edit | |
urllib.patch2 | irmen, 2004-11-07 20:54 | improved patch | ||
urllib-truncate.diff | georg.brandl, 2005-07-15 08:51 |
Messages (11) | |||
---|---|---|---|
msg47256 - (view) | Author: Irmen de Jong (irmen) | Date: 2004-11-07 20:15 | |
The patch makes urllib.urlretrieve raise an IOError if the actual download size is different from the expected size (taken from the content-length header). |
|||
msg47257 - (view) | Author: Irmen de Jong (irmen) | Date: 2004-11-07 20:54 | |
Logged In: YES user_id=129426 NOTE: urllib.patch2 may be a bit better. It fixes a misspelling, and also is more relaxed about a 'wrong' download size. To be more precise: it treats content-length as a lower bound (just like wget and firefox appear to do). So if there's more data to read, it reads more data, but if less data is available, it gives an IOError |
|||
msg47258 - (view) | Author: Johannes Gijsbers (jlgijsbers) * | Date: 2004-12-06 21:48 | |
Logged In: YES user_id=469548 Sorry Irmen, I'm a bit late with this, but now is the time to get new "features" checked into the trunk. Could you add a doc patch that explains the behavior as you did in your previous message and a tests patch? I can check it in then. |
|||
msg47259 - (view) | Author: Raymond Hettinger (rhettinger) * | Date: 2004-12-21 00:00 | |
Logged In: YES user_id=80475 Irmin, please attach the new patch. If you're having trouble with the docs, that's fine, just include the text you want changed. Do include tests with your patch. |
|||
msg47260 - (view) | Author: Irmen de Jong (irmen) | Date: 2004-12-24 14:10 | |
Logged In: YES user_id=129426 Yes I'm having trouble building the docs from source, so I will just add the text that I would like to change in the docs. When I have some time left (it's Christmas after all :) ) I'll also create a regression test for the new behavior. In the meantime, the "urllib.patch" may be deleted because "urllib.patch2" is the correct patch (I seem to be unable to delete the attachment myself) |
|||
msg47261 - (view) | Author: Irmen de Jong (irmen) | Date: 2004-12-24 14:30 | |
Logged In: YES user_id=129426 Suggested addition to the doc of urllib (liburllib.tex, if I'm not mistaken): """ urlretrieve will raise IOError when it detects that the amount of data available was less than the expected amount (which is the size reported by a Content-Length header). This can occur, for example, when the download is interrupted. The Content-Length is treated as a lower bound (just like tools such as wget and Ffirefox appear to do): if there's more data to read, urlretrieve reads more data, but if less data is available, it raises IOError. If no Content-Length header was supplied, urlretrieve can not check the size of the data it has downloaded, and just returns it. In this case you just have to assume that the download was successful. """ |
|||
msg47262 - (view) | Author: Martin v. Löwis (loewis) * | Date: 2005-02-24 21:07 | |
Logged In: YES user_id=21627 I think the patch is essentially right. However, I'm concerned with losing the data that got just downloaded - I propose to stick them into the IOError (or, better, subclass IOError to keep the data, and document where to find them). |
|||
msg47263 - (view) | Author: Georg Brandl (georg.brandl) * | Date: 2005-07-15 08:51 | |
Logged In: YES user_id=1188172 Attaching new patch which implements Martin's suggestion (urllib-truncate.diff). Please review. |
|||
msg47264 - (view) | Author: Raymond Hettinger (rhettinger) * | Date: 2005-08-24 07:11 | |
Logged In: YES user_id=80475 Martin, is this okay? |
|||
msg47265 - (view) | Author: Martin v. Löwis (loewis) * | Date: 2005-08-24 08:49 | |
Logged In: YES user_id=21627 The patch is fine, please apply. As a minor nit: I don't think we should have SF bug report numbers in the code. The comments in the code should be self-contained, without the need to look at a bug report. If somebody really wants to find out what triggered addition to the code, they should do "cvs ann", and then look at the commit message (which should have the bugid). I also think there should be a \versionadded for the new exception. Not sure whether it can go into the 2.4 branch because of the new exception. |
|||
msg47266 - (view) | Author: Georg Brandl (georg.brandl) * | Date: 2005-08-24 18:47 | |
Logged In: YES user_id=1188172 Changed according to your nits and committed only to 2.5 branch. Lib/urllib.py 1.167 Doc/lib/liburllib.tex 1.58 |
History | |||
---|---|---|---|
Date | User | Action | Args |
2022-04-11 14:56:08 | admin | set | github: 41147 |
2004-11-07 20:15:32 | irmen | create |