On Jul 10, 11:10 pm, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (John J. Lee) wrote: > "[EMAIL PROTECTED]" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > urllib2.build_opener happily accepts and ignores a FileCookieJar. I > > had a bug in my code which looked like > > > urllib2.build_opener(func_returning_cookie_jar()) > > > which should have been > > > urllib2.build_opener(HTTPCookieProcessor(func_returning_cookie_jar()) > > > The problem is that the code ran happily without actually sending the > > cookie, the CookieJar was just ignored. I think that build_opener > > should throw an exception when add_handler doesn't actually add. > > > Is this worth filing a bug for, or is it acceptable behavior? > > IMO, it's worth filing iff: > > a) you think it's worthwhile (this one sounds worthwhile to me) > > b) you write a patch and are prepared to patiently keep at it until it > gets applied > > Make sure your patch follows PEP 8. Make sure the patch includes test > and documentation updates / additions (you don't need to write docs in > LaTeX format -- other people will do the conversion to LaTeX for you > if you like). If there are no doc changes required, state that > explicitly in the patch tracker. If your patch gets ignored, review > five other patches, and post to python-dev stating you have done so > and requesting that your patch is reviewed (there's a shortage of > patch reviewers). > > John
The patch is on the tracker here. http://sourceforge.net/tracker/index.php?func=detail&aid=1750931&group_id=5470&atid=305470 Are the docs themselves in subversion? I suppose I should also update the doc at http://docs.python.org/lib/module-urllib2.html -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
