-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
Gary Poster wrote:
> Hm. I sent this from the wrong account, so it didn't make it to the
> zope-dev list. I'm also adding an additional bit of war story at the
> end.
>
>
> On Aug 24, 2009, at 11:16 AM, Gary Poster wrote:
>
>> Hi Tres
>>
>> I made a 3.5.8 release of the zope.publisher 3.5 branch for a reason
>> unimportant to this email (I backported a change to trunk that was
>> discussed on the mailing list). It looks like you made a 3.5.7 with
>> the following change (omitting tests and the like).
>>
>> 98932 tseaver # Python 2.6 notices QS-on-POST,
>> which breaks BBB for us.
>> 98932 tseaver # Suppress that.
>> 98932 tseaver if 'QUERY_STRING' in self._environ:
>> 98932 tseaver env = self._environ
>> 98932 tseaver env['X-POST-QUERY_STRING'] =
>> env.pop('QUERY_STRING')
>>
>> I can handle adjusting to this change, if it is appropriate, but my
>> concern is that it is not in trunk or any subsequent major release
>> (3.6, 3.7, 3.8) of zope.publisher. Therefore, if I change my code
>> to use my updated 3.5 release, which I had hoped would be a
>> conservative update, I have to change in a currently forward-
>> incompatible way.
>>
>> What's the story here? Is 3.5.7 a brownbag that needs to have its
>> changes aborted in a subsequent release in that branch? Or are
>> those legitimate changes that need to be forward ported?
>>
>> FWIW, we (Launchpad) also care about this case of a POST with other
>> pertinent, separate data in the query string, and the behavior you
>> implement here would be fine if it is necessary for Py 2.6 as your
>> comment describes.
>
> Also FWIW, this change breaks many of our forms that were explicitly
> constructing form actions that included the current query string. I'm
> not sure how that could be avoided, although the fix might have been
> simpler if there were always an X-ORIGINAL-QUERY_STRING or something
> else.
>
> If I were not already behind, I would investigate to understand the
> Python 2.6 problem better and see what other frameworks are doing
> here. I understand from conversations with other engineers that at
> least some Django developers are accustomed to always having access to
> the query string on the request object, whether the method were get or
> post or whatever else.
It is *essential* for correct operation that QUERY_STRING values *not*
be admixed with POSTed form values. I don't really care how we resolve
your issue, as long as we do not end up in a case where the values in
the query string get mingled into the form data: for instance, we could
hand a QUERY_STRING-free copy of the environment to the cgi.FieldStorage
machinery.
Whatever gets done needs to leave the existing test in place::
self.assertEqual(dict(request.form), dict(x='1', y='2'))
for a request whose QUERY_STRING was 'a=5&b:int=6', but which posted the
'x' and 'y' values.
Tres.
- --
===================================================================
Tres Seaver +1 540-429-0999 tseaver at palladion.com
Palladion Software "Excellence by Design" http://palladion.com
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org
iD8DBQFKkwXA+gerLs4ltQ4RAhVKAKDY5LuTUshFf1ihKTQXpJjyxvIeeACglpu8
FZSMcnQjaiOyax9ziOAlFNE=
=qJS/
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----