This might be a UX problem and not a technical one. The author seems to think that `Response.ok` should be an all-purpose check.
Its been a while since i used Requests, but iirc response.ok is basically syntax sugar; but it seems to me that in most valid usecases where you'd like this sugar (over being explicit in your actions), is when you'd like to verify the communications was correct. And malformed http is not correct. I imagine if you implemented a wrapper ok2, of correctness check + response.ok, you'd see 90% of response.ok become ok2
It seems to me to be a sensible check (validate that the http message meets the standard), that should exist in any http library at request's level. And response.ok seems like a wasted api slot, if its not meeting the full needs of its sugaring
Except that the status line is literally "HTTP 200 OK", and the 'ok' check is simply using the domain terminology. This is not a bad thing. And having 'request.ok' be a general "I have examined every possible aspect of this response for problems and found none" is probably impossible, despite being what you apparently expect.
The solution is not to rename the method, it's to also warn or error when there's something fishy in the response. Which is apparently what requests 3.x will do.
There's also the issue that the Content-Length header, while generally well-adopted, is optional (sending either Content-Length or Transfer-Encoding is a SHOULD in RFC 7230, not a MUST), and sending an incorrect Content-Length, while annoying, is not actually against the RFC (the only MUST NOT prohibitions on an incorrect Content-Length value in the response are when the request was a HEAD or a conditional GET).
When a Content-Length is given in a message where a message-body is allowed, its field value MUST exactly
match the number of OCTETs in the message-body.
[1] https://www.w3.org/Protocols/rfc2616/rfc2616-sec4.html#sec4....
https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc7230#section-3.3.2
Occurrences of MUST NOT for the server in that section are:
A sender MUST NOT send a Content-Length header field in any message that contains a Transfer-Encoding header field.
(so can't send both Content-Length and Transfer-Encoding)
A server MAY send a Content-Length header field in a response to a HEAD request (Section 4.3.2 of [RFC7231]); a server MUST NOT send Content-Length in such a response unless its field-value equals the decimal number of octets that would have been sent in the payload body of a response if the same request had used the GET method.
(if you send Content-Length on HEAD, it must match the length of the response you would have sent for GET)
A server MAY send a Content-Length header field in a 304 (Not Modified) response to a conditional GET request (Section 4.1 of [RFC7232]); a server MUST NOT send Content-Length in such a response unless its field-value equals the decimal number of octets that would have been sent in the payload body of a 200 (OK) response to the same request.
(you can send Content-Length on conditional GET; if you do, must match length of the response you would have sent for GET)
A server MUST NOT send a Content-Length header field in any response with a status code of 1xx (Informational) or 204 (No Content). A server MUST NOT send a Content-Length header field in any 2xx (Successful) response to a CONNECT request (Section 4.3.6 of [RFC7231]).
(some other situations that can't use Content-Length)
It may be an oversight, but nothing in that section requires that the Content-Length, in general, must match the size of the response body.
I'll agree and admit that implication is not explicit specification, but I think it's a reasonable example to follow.
Well, not exactly. From the documentation of .ok: "This is not a check to see if the response code is 200 OK."
Technically, it checks if status code is not between 400 and 600.
FWIW Response.status_code is an int, so it might need to be a member function on Response.
No, it acts like an int; whether it is one (should be) irrelevant :)
class StatusCode(int):
@property
def ok(self):
return 200 <= self < 300I'm glad to see the requests 3.0 does this by default for invalid Content-Length.