Skip to content

gh-104527: zippapp will now avoid appending an archive to itself. #106076

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

Merged
merged 2 commits into from
Jun 26, 2023

Conversation

gabevenberg
Copy link
Contributor

@gabevenberg gabevenberg commented Jun 25, 2023

While #104857 does add an error message that makes it much easier to figure out what is going wrong when calling zipfile.write, some of the stdlib uses of zipfile will run into this issue when recursively zipping a directory into an archive that is a child of said directory.

Sometimes, esp. in zipapp, the desired behavior is to place the contents of foo into foo/deploy.zip, or something like that. (case in point, I discovered #104527 from a project that was trying to do just that.) In this case, zippapp should not simply throw the error that #104857 is adding, but skip over the target archive.

(should I submit another PR doing the same thing for shutil.make_archive, or should we let that one fail with an error?)

@bedevere-bot
Copy link

Most changes to Python require a NEWS entry.

Please add it using the blurb_it web app or the blurb command-line tool.

@ghost
Copy link

ghost commented Jun 25, 2023

All commit authors signed the Contributor License Agreement.
CLA signed

@arhadthedev
Copy link
Member

@pfmoore as a zipapp module expert

Copy link
Member

@pfmoore pfmoore left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

This seems like a reasonable quality of life improvement.

@pfmoore pfmoore merged commit dac3d38 into python:main Jun 26, 2023
@gabevenberg gabevenberg deleted the gh-104527-zipapp-fix branch June 26, 2023 12:31
@gabevenberg
Copy link
Contributor Author

@giampaolo or @tarekziade, should a similar thing be done for shutil, or will gh-104857 be sufficent (given the usecase is less clear)

@serhiy-storchaka
Copy link
Member

It is very inefficient.

@serhiy-storchaka
Copy link
Member

And this change needs a test.

@akx
Copy link
Contributor

akx commented Feb 24, 2025

I believe this has broken some things – see #130379.

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

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

6 participants