Do not call close() on the response_stream
#752
Merged
Conversation
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
This allows a plain `IOBuffer` to be used with `response_stream`. It seems unnecessary to be calling `close(response_stream)` inside HTTP.request() - given that HTTP.request is a blocking operation, the caller can easily close the stream themselves after `HTTP.request()` returns. This could be considered a breaking change for users who use the internal IO type Base.BufferStream with the response_stream keyword. Fixes #543
Codecov Report
@@ Coverage Diff @@
## master #752 +/- ##
==========================================
- Coverage 76.84% 76.84% -0.01%
==========================================
Files 38 38
Lines 2514 2513 -1
==========================================
- Hits 1932 1931 -1
Misses 582 582
Continue to review full report at Codecov.
|
quinnj
approved these changes
Sep 8, 2021
|
Downloads.jl uses Are we happy to merge right away, even though this is arguably breaking? |
|
Yeah, fine by me |
|
Can we get a release that includes this fix? |
This was referenced Sep 28, 2021
bors bot
added a commit
to JuliaCloud/AWS.jl
that referenced
this pull request
Sep 28, 2021
467: Always close the `response_stream` after `HTTP.request` r=mattBrzezinski a=nickrobinson251 - We need to explicitly close the `response_stream` (`HTTP.request` no longer closes it for us) in HTTP.jl v0.9.15+ (see JuliaWeb/HTTP.jl#752) - Since `close` is safe to call multiple times, this should be compatible with old HTTP.jl versions. - Should fix issue #466 (and JuliaCloud/AWSS3.jl#215) - Also since we're fixing this here, we can close JuliaWeb/HTTP.jl#772 ~TODO: add test... i just need to recreate the issue using AWS.jl explicitly (rather than AWSS3)~ done. Co-authored-by: Nick Robinson <nicholas.robinson@invenialabs.co.uk> Co-authored-by: Nick Robinson <npr251@gmail.com>
bors bot
added a commit
to JuliaCloud/AWS.jl
that referenced
this pull request
Sep 28, 2021
467: Always close the `response_stream` after `HTTP.request` r=mattBrzezinski a=nickrobinson251 - We need to explicitly close the `response_stream` (`HTTP.request` no longer closes it for us) in HTTP.jl v0.9.15+ (see JuliaWeb/HTTP.jl#752) - Since `close` is safe to call multiple times, this should be compatible with old HTTP.jl versions. - Should fix issue #466 (and JuliaCloud/AWSS3.jl#215) - Also since we're fixing this here, we can close JuliaWeb/HTTP.jl#772 ~TODO: add test... i just need to recreate the issue using AWS.jl explicitly (rather than AWSS3)~ done. Co-authored-by: Nick Robinson <nicholas.robinson@invenialabs.co.uk> Co-authored-by: Nick Robinson <npr251@gmail.com>
fredrikekre
added a commit
that referenced
this pull request
Sep 29, 2021
This reverts commit 03749a4.
This was referenced Sep 29, 2021
fredrikekre
added a commit
that referenced
this pull request
Sep 29, 2021
This reverts commit 03749a4.
c42f
added a commit
that referenced
this pull request
Oct 5, 2021
This allows a plain `IOBuffer` to be used with `response_stream`. It seems unnecessary to be calling `close(response_stream)` inside HTTP.request() - given that HTTP.request is a blocking operation, the caller can easily close the stream themselves after `HTTP.request()` returns. This could be considered a breaking change for users who use the internal IO type Base.BufferStream with the response_stream keyword. Fixes #543
quinnj
added a commit
that referenced
this pull request
Dec 15, 2021
This allows a plain `IOBuffer` to be used with `response_stream`. It seems unnecessary to be calling `close(response_stream)` inside HTTP.request() - given that HTTP.request is a blocking operation, the caller can easily close the stream themselves after `HTTP.request()` returns. This could be considered a breaking change for users who use the internal IO type Base.BufferStream with the response_stream keyword. Fixes #543 Co-authored-by: Jacob Quinn <quinn.jacobd@gmail.com>
quinnj
added a commit
that referenced
this pull request
Mar 10, 2022
This allows a plain `IOBuffer` to be used with `response_stream`. It seems unnecessary to be calling `close(response_stream)` inside HTTP.request() - given that HTTP.request is a blocking operation, the caller can easily close the stream themselves after `HTTP.request()` returns. This could be considered a breaking change for users who use the internal IO type Base.BufferStream with the response_stream keyword. Fixes #543 Co-authored-by: Jacob Quinn <quinn.jacobd@gmail.com>
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
This allows a plain
IOBufferto be used withresponse_stream.It seems unnecessary to be calling
close(response_stream)insideHTTP.request() - given that HTTP.request is a blocking operation, the
caller can easily close the stream themselves after
HTTP.request()returns.
This could be considered a breaking change for users who use the
internal IO type Base.BufferStream with the response_stream keyword.
Fixes #543