python
gh-82151: Improve docs for urllib3.parse
A Python core developer has requested some changes be made to your pull request before we can consider merging it. If you could please address their requests along with any other requests in other reviews from core developers that would be appreciated.
Once you have made the requested changes, please leave a comment on this pull request containing the phrase I have made the requested changes; please review again. I will then notify any core developers who have left a review that you're ready for them to take another look at this pull request.
The fix here is good and important.
However, this does not address the central issue brought up in bpo-37970, regarding this line of the docs being misleading, since the parts of the netloc are available as additional attributes on the returned named-tuple object:
The components are not broken up in smaller parts (for example, the network location is a single string)
You're right, don't know why I missed this part, fixed for both urlsplit and parse.
Thanks for making the requested changes!
@taleinat: please review the changes made to this pull request.
A Python core developer has requested some changes be made to your pull request before we can consider merging it. If you could please address their requests along with any other requests in other reviews from core developers that would be appreciated.
Once you have made the requested changes, please leave a comment on this pull request containing the phrase I have made the requested changes; please review again. I will then notify any core developers who have left a review that you're ready for them to take another look at this pull request.
@taleinat I've changed one description, once we'll decide on the format I'll clone for the other function
Apologies for the delay, @idomic.
What you've written is better, I like the direction :)
I suggest omitting the first sentence, which I find redundant, changing the order of the sentences, and changing "expanded" to "decoded":
The delimiters as shown above are not part of the result, except for a leading slash in the path component, which is retained if present.
Additionally, the netloc item is broken down into: username, password, hostname, and port. These are added as additional attributes of the returned object.
% escapes are not decoded.
For example: ...
What do you think?
@taleinat Agree, I like the decoded change, and the first paragraph. What do you think about:
Additionally, the netloc property is broken down into these additional attributes in the returned object: username, password, hostname, and port.
@idomic, looks good, just replace "in the returned object" with "added to the returned object".
A Python core developer has requested some changes be made to your pull request before we can consider merging it. If you could please address their requests along with any other requests in other reviews from core developers that would be appreciated.
Once you have made the requested changes, please leave a comment on this pull request containing the phrase I have made the requested changes; please review again. I will then notify any core developers who have left a review that you're ready for them to take another look at this pull request.
@idomic, please review the
urlsplit()docs as currently suggested by this PR much more thoroughly.
@taleinat I think I've added the missing descriptions and changed it to fit to url split. Also tried to remove redundant text.
Thanks for making the requested changes!
@taleinat: please review the changes made to this pull request.
A Python core developer has requested some changes be made to your pull request before we can consider merging it. If you could please address their requests along with any other requests in other reviews from core developers that would be appreciated.
Once you have made the requested changes, please leave a comment on this pull request containing the phrase I have made the requested changes; please review again. I will then notify any core developers who have left a review that you're ready for them to take another look at this pull request.
Thanks for making the requested changes!
@taleinat: please review the changes made to this pull request.
Hello, the original creator has not been active for quite some time. I can open a PR for #82151 myself if @idomic doesn't mind.
