Prepare 0.4.0 release about requests-oauthlib

[ib-lundgren]

It would be nice to have docs in general but if available on readthedocs
that mustn’t necessarily be in 0.4. I'd say making sure the libraries play
nicely together encoding wise in both 2-3. That might be the case but just
to confirm.

Unfortunately I won't have much time over the next week or two =(

On Thu, Apr 25, 2013 at 8:58 PM, Cory Benfield [email protected]:

The current 0.3.0 release is pretty old and we've fixed a few bugs, as
well as added a massive amount of functionality. I want to get this library
into a shape where we can pass it to Kenneth all he has to do is tag it and
go. @ib-lundgren https://github.com/ib-lundgren, @sigmavirus24https://github.com/sigmavirus24,
is there anything we need to do?

—
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHubhttps://github.com//issues/36
.

[michaelhelmick]

Hiiiii, I just wanted to let you guys know that that pesky UnicodeDecodeError: 'ascii' codec can't decode byte 0x89 in position 259: ordinal not in range(128) is back with the latest pushes to master :(

I can confirm it works at this commit: 156543b

I pulled a clone and am resetting to every commit after that to see where it broke.

Edit

It indeed breaks after the next commit 925d9ae

Which I don't get because nothing in 925d9ae effected 156543b as far as I can see...

[koobs]

I'm about to land a FreeBSD port for requests-oauthlib, the following helps us OS packagers/porters:

• zip_safe=False in setup.py to avoid EGG_CACHE foo on installs or patching setup.py in our trees
• Hook the unit tests into python setup.py test command

Also, setup.py says install_requires oauthlib, but requirements.txt also mentions request, which is the canonical reference?

[Lukasa]

@michaelhelmick: Thanks for pointing that out, I'll take another look at it this evening.
@koobs: I'm pretty sure we could actually install the library without either. It won't do anything without both requests and oauthlib, though. I'll take a look at the setup.py changes too.

[koobs]

I've always taken install_requires to mean 'required to function', but my note above was more about having a canonical (single) place for clarity. Thanks for taking a look :)

[ib-lundgren]

I don't see any harm in having both requests & oauthlib in both
requirments.txt and setup.py.

On Tue, Apr 30, 2013 at 1:40 PM, koobs [email protected] wrote:

I've always taken install_requires to mean 'required to function', but my
note above was more about having a canonical (single) place for clarity

—
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHubhttps://github.com//issues/36#issuecomment-17222257
.

[Lukasa]

@michaelhelmick: I've got a fix over in #37, do you want to give it a test? I'm sorry we managed to break this again. =( Can't be helping you downstream.

[michaelhelmick]

@Lukasa I'll test it in a few, thanks for your work on fixing the issue!

[koobs]

Diff against 0.3.1 to hook in unit tests and requirements & zip_safe=False to assist us OS packagers/porters:

--- ./setup.py.orig     2013-05-04 16:37:49.000000000 +1000
+++ ./setup.py  2013-05-04 17:04:12.135652732 +1000
@@ -43,6 +43,9 @@
         'Programming Language :: Python :: 2.6',
         'Programming Language :: Python :: 2.7',
     ),
+    zip_safe=False,
+    tests_require = ['mock'],
+    test_suite="tests",
 )

[Lukasa]

@koobs: Is this still something you want?

[koobs]

@Lukasa Absolutely, as long as it makes sense to you as well

[Lukasa]

@koobs: Ok, I've done that. I'm closing this issue now because it's totally out of date. =P

[koobs]

<3 thanks!