Skip to content
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

Make compatible with requests 2.29.0 and urllib3 2.0 #613

Merged
merged 7 commits into from
May 5, 2023

Conversation

felixfontein
Copy link
Collaborator

@felixfontein felixfontein commented May 2, 2023

SUMMARY

Try to fix at least parts of #611.

Since requests 2.29.0, requests uses urllib3's native chunking ability (see psf/requests#6226). By using urllib3's HTTPConnection class (which extends httplib.HTTPConnection`) we make sure that our HTTP transports support this as well.

ISSUE TYPE
  • Bugfix Pull Request
COMPONENT NAME

vendored Docker SDK for Python

@felixfontein
Copy link
Collaborator Author

urllib3.connection.HTTPConnection has been around since urllib3 1.8 (2014) so this should be pretty safe.

I've also created a similar PR for Docker SDK for Python (docker/docker-py#3116).

@felixfontein felixfontein changed the title [WIP] Make compatible with requests 2.29.0 Make compatible with requests 2.29.0 May 2, 2023
@felixfontein felixfontein changed the title Make compatible with requests 2.29.0 Make compatible with requests 2.29.0 and urllib3 2.0 May 2, 2023
@felixfontein
Copy link
Collaborator Author

According to docker/docker-py#3113 (comment) this should also make the code compatible with urllib3 2.0.

@felixfontein
Copy link
Collaborator Author

https://github.com/ansible-collections/community.docker/actions/runs/4874702225/jobs/8695973844?pr=614 shows that this is not done yet with urllib3 2.0. Unfortunately requests 2.30.0 has been yanked, so I cannot test this in CI anymore until they make a new release.

@felixfontein
Copy link
Collaborator Author

Hmm, I didn't notice that the task that fails isn't our code, but pip. So this isn't a problem with this collection's code. I still think df8a492 is a good idea though.

@felixfontein felixfontein force-pushed the requests branch 6 times, most recently from 7d6ff0b to 9a6c03a Compare May 5, 2023 19:39
@felixfontein felixfontein merged commit 39f2e9b into ansible-collections:main May 5, 2023
@felixfontein felixfontein deleted the requests branch May 5, 2023 20:09
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

1 participant