urllib2 regression

[jjlee]

BPO	1542948
Nosy	@birkenfeld
Files	header-case.patch header-case-with-tests.patch

^{Note: these values reflect the state of the issue at the time it was migrated and might not reflect the current state.}

Show more details

GitHub fields:

assignee = None
closed_at = <Date 2006-08-20.13:15:55.000>
created_at = <Date 2006-08-19.01:48:11.000>
labels = ['library']
title = 'urllib2 regression'
updated_at = <Date 2006-08-20.13:15:55.000>
user = 'https://bugs.python.org/jjlee'

bugs.python.org fields:

activity = <Date 2006-08-20.13:15:55.000>
actor = 'georg.brandl'
assignee = 'none'
closed = True
closed_date = None
closer = None
components = ['Library (Lib)']
creation = <Date 2006-08-19.01:48:11.000>
creator = 'jjlee'
dependencies = []
files = ['7487', '7488']
hgrepos = []
issue_num = 1542948
keywords = ['patch']
message_count = 5.0
messages = ['50952', '50953', '50954', '50955', '50956']
nosy_count = 3.0
nosy_names = ['nnorwitz', 'georg.brandl', 'jjlee']
pr_nums = []
priority = 'normal'
resolution = 'accepted'
stage = None
status = 'closed'
superseder = None
type = None
url = 'https://bugs.python.org/issue1542948'
versions = ['Python 2.5']

[jjlee]

Patch 1459963 (applied in 50842) needlessly breaks the
old (albeit undocumented) interface of direct access to
request.headers (which existed prior to the
introduction of method. That patch changes the case of
the keys of the request.headers dictionary. That seems
guaranteed to break existing code.

The attached patch reverts 50842's changes to urllib2
(it does not revert the changes to urllib) and fixes
the reported issue with a one-line fix in
AbstractHTTPHandler (.title()-case the HTTP headers
before sending them to httplib). That fix is also more
localised to HTTP -- urllib2 knows about other
protocols too. This patch also corrects a mis-wording
in Misc/NEWS: the old case convention was not strictly
incorrect (according to RFC 2616), but just did not
follow the usual title-case convention.

If the original patch was applied to the 2.4
maintenance branch, I guess this patch should be
applied there too.

[jjlee]

Logged In: YES
user_id=261020

s/(which existed prior to the introduction of method/(which
existed prior to the introduction of the .get_header() &c.
methods)/

[nnorwitz]

Logged In: YES
user_id=33168

I would like to see additional tests to ensure something
like this doesn't happen again.

[jjlee]

Logged In: YES
user_id=261020

Quite right, here's a patch with the missing test.

[birkenfeld]

Logged In: YES
user_id=849994

Applied as rev. 51416, 51417 (2.5)