Repository navigation
Restore --no-verify CLI flag - #1186
Conversation
|
Docs preview: https://84ce9e39-httpx2-docs.pydantic.workers.dev |
Merging this PR will not alter performance
Comparing 
Footnotes
|
![chatgpt-codex-connector[bot]](https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/in/1144995?s=60&v=4){kind=small}
There was a problem hiding this comment.
💡 Codex Review
Here are some automated review suggestions for this pull request.
Reviewed commit: 4d307da905
ℹ️ About Codex in GitHub
Your team has set up Codex to review pull requests in this repo. Reviews are triggered when you
- Open a pull request for review
- Mark a draft as ready
- Comment "@codex review".
If Codex has suggestions, it will comment; otherwise it will react with 👍.
Codex can also answer questions or update the PR. Try commenting "@codex address that feedback".
![cubic-dev-ai[bot]](https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/in/1082092?s=60&v=4){kind=small}
There was a problem hiding this comment.
1 issue found across 2 files (changes from recent commits).
Prompt for AI agents (unresolved issues)
Check if these issues are valid — if so, understand the root cause of each and fix them. If appropriate, use sub-agents to investigate and fix each issue separately.
<file name="tests/httpx2/test_main.py">
<violation number="1" location="tests/httpx2/test_main.py:40">
P2: The new test only asserts that click parses `verify` into the expected boolean. The removed `test_no_verify` sent a real HTTPS request with `--no-verify` to a self-signed server and asserted `exit_code == 0`, which was the only coverage proving the flag actually disables verification end-to-end. Restore an integration test (e.g. invoking `main` against an `https_server` with `--no-verify` and asserting success) so a wiring or SSL-path regression in the very flag this PR restores is still caught.</violation>
</file>
Tip: Review your code locally with the cubic CLI to iterate faster.
Re-trigger cubic
There was a problem hiding this comment.
P2: The new test only asserts that click parses verify into the expected boolean. The removed test_no_verify sent a real HTTPS request with --no-verify to a self-signed server and asserted exit_code == 0, which was the only coverage proving the flag actually disables verification end-to-end. Restore an integration test (e.g. invoking main against an https_server with --no-verify and asserting success) so a wiring or SSL-path regression in the very flag this PR restores is still caught.
Prompt for AI agents
Check if this issue is valid — if so, understand the root cause and fix it. At tests/httpx2/test_main.py, line 40:
<comment>The new test only asserts that click parses `verify` into the expected boolean. The removed `test_no_verify` sent a real HTTPS request with `--no-verify` to a self-signed server and asserted `exit_code == 0`, which was the only coverage proving the flag actually disables verification end-to-end. Restore an integration test (e.g. invoking `main` against an `https_server` with `--no-verify` and asserting success) so a wiring or SSL-path regression in the very flag this PR restores is still caught.</comment>
<file context>
@@ -28,10 +29,17 @@ def test_help() -> None:
+ (["--no-verify"], False),
+ ],
+)
+def test_verify_option(option: list[str], expected: bool) -> None:
+ with main.make_context("httpx2", ["https://example.com", *option]) as context:
+ assert context.params["verify"] is expected
</file context>
Summary
Preserve the existing
--no-verifyCLI flag while adding the explicit--verifycounterpart. Update the custom help output and cover the parsed values for both flags.Tests
scripts/test -quv run pytest tests/httpx2/test_main.py -qAI Disclaimer
This PR was developed with the assistance of either Claude or Codex. I've reviewed and verified the changes.