-
-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 5.1k
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
Update block_requests.py to resolve unexpected type error (500 error) after updating to gradio 4.28.3 #5976
Conversation
I upgraded to Gradio |
Could you share which commit you're on so I can replicate? |
I tested with the most recent one. If I downgrade gradio to |
I'm concerned about the lack of transparency in package modifications during installation. It's unclear when edits are made and users shouldn't be surprised by changes they didn't consent to. Without clear information on what changes were made, debugging issues becomes much harder. Developers will struggle to reproduce problems or identify the root cause of issues. also unannounced modifications can introduce unknown security risks. |
The installation script downloads the necessary packages outlined in various |
I'm closing this because this error does not happen with the gradio version in requirements.txt. Gradio changes a lot over time and the project is only guaranteed to work with the specified version. |
Happened to me now (randomly). Probably some sub-requirement causes this. |
Resolves #5975 (comment)
Checklist:
In the original function, file_contents is a bytes object because the file is opened as a binary file and the replace method replaces bytes objects. In the second function, the file_contents is a string object because the file is opened as a text file and the replace method replaces string objects. This is done because when updating the gradio version to the latest version, the following error appears which references the block_requests.py file.
Additionally a specific iframe script from the content of the file is being removed. This line is commented out in the second function with the comment saying there is no need for it as this effectively renders the request null