Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Relax requests dependency constraint once psf/requests issue 6432 is resolved #149

Closed
mgyucht opened this issue Jun 6, 2023 · 2 comments

Comments

@mgyucht
Copy link
Contributor

mgyucht commented Jun 6, 2023

Currently we add a strict upper bound of <2.29 to the requests library. Requests 2.30+ is incompatible with urllib <2, but users of databricks-sdk may still depend on older versions of urllib. Once psf/requests#6432 is resolved, we should relax the upper bound to allow more recent versions of the requests library which incorporate the most recent release of urllib. This should improve the security posture of the SDK.

@judahrand
Copy link
Contributor

judahrand commented Jun 8, 2023

Requests 2.30+ is incompatible with urllib <2

This isn't true. The release notes explicitly state that users who need an older urllib3 can pin it (urllib3<2).

but users of databricks-sdk may still depend on older versions of urllib

They may depend on an older versions of urllib3 but they also may not. Should it not be left to consumers of this package to pin their dependencies to a working set?

eg.

databricks-sdk
requests>=2.31
urllib3<2

Can we please either unpin requests and leave it up to the consumer to pin urllib3 if they need to (which is the right answer here) or unpin requests but pin urllib3<2 in this package (less good solution but a compromise!).

Additionally, this is a duplicate of #136

@mgyucht
Copy link
Contributor Author

mgyucht commented Jun 9, 2023

My mistake, it was only version 2.29 which was incompatible with urllib3 at version 2. 2.30 does seem to support urllib3 @ version 2. Thanks for noting the duplicate, let's continue to discuss on #136 going forward.

@mgyucht mgyucht closed this as completed Jun 9, 2023
@mgyucht mgyucht closed this as not planned Won't fix, can't repro, duplicate, stale Jun 9, 2023
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

2 participants