Drop the doctype check #10906
Drop the doctype check #10906
Conversation
There was a problem hiding this comment.
It wasn't clear from @pradyunsg 's comment whether he meant get rid of the doctype validation for index pages (which, technically, are covered by a PEP) in addition to --find-links parsing. This does both, correct?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
We should probably also have an explicit test that --find-links pointing to a page without a doctype declaration works. Such a test would ensure that in future, even if we tighten up the validation for indexes, we don't accidentally require the same strictness for --find-links.
tests/unit/test_collector.py
Outdated
| @@ -586,7 +586,7 @@ def test_parse_links_presents_warning_on_html4_doctype( | |||
| assert "pkg1-1.0" in parsed_links[0].url | |||
| assert "pkg1-2.0" in parsed_links[1].url | |||
|
|
|||
| assert len(caplog.records) == 1 | |||
| assert len(caplog.records) == 0 | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I'd strongly prefer to drop these tests instead of promising that we won't warn on invalid/missing doctypes.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I'm happy to do that. But I'd still like to see a test that ensures that any validation we might put on indexes doesn't "leak" into how we handle --find-links (because --find-links is explicitly intended to support anything that dumps out an unstructured "bunch of links to files", such as a webserver auto-generated directory page). But I won't block somebody else merging this PR without that test, if people feel I'm being too pedantic.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Ill add a test for --find-links.
|
Tests are failed because of this: pypa/flit#498 |
|
@q0w Do you know when you might be able to update this PR? |
|
@pradyunsg today |
This comment was marked as resolved.
This comment was marked as resolved.
|
I can use the squash button! Thanks @q0w! ^.^ |
Co-authored-by: Pradyun Gedam <pradyunsg@gmail.com>
Closes #10903