-
-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 899
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
make SA engine configuration more flexible #684
Conversation
Current Travis failures:
@davidism I'm not sure where FSA sits in terms of Python version support. Created an issue to discuss that: #685 The docs error I can look into but I figured I'd see if you knew what the problem is. This PR doesn't change that file, so I think the problem existed previously. |
When #687 is approved and merged, I'll rebase this PR on that branch and that should resolved all the CI issues. |
70a6d65
to
2ddc775
Compare
I need to review how/why |
8dacd50
to
79a0c5a
Compare
I'd like to punt on that discussion and have opened #698 for discussion. @davidism I've rebased this PR, Travis is passing, and I believe the commits in this PR are distinct enough to not squash. Let me know if you would like me to change anything and/or if I'm good to merge. |
When pallets-eco/flask-sqlalchemy#684 is merged, we should be good to use the newest SQLAlchemy again.
5cf891e
to
56d408c
Compare
Code updated to address two review requests. The lingering one with respect to mock usage remains. If the status quo is acceptable, then this is ready for merge and I'll prep a 2.4 release for @davidism's review. |
The doc tests are failing in CI with:
That tox run passes when I test it locally, maybe GitHub is having some issues. Anyway, I don't think that failure should hold up the merge of this PR. I'll kick off the job a couple more times to see if I can get it to pass. Definitely think GitHub is having issues, another CI run gives a different PR number for the failure:
|
Are there any separate features we can deprecate and roll into this? If so, I'd like those deprecation warnings to be in the next release. |
@davidism The two deprecations that arose from fast forwarding
|
That's not what I'm referring to, those are deprecations in SQLAlchemy. I'm referring to features that we want to deprecate. |
With the recent publishing of security vulnerabilities in SQLAlchemy With these security issues abound, I would like to suggest that we consider expediting getting this merged and released (i.e. without waiting for more stuff to put into the next release) I haven't read the code here, so not sure if a patch version is appropriate, but really would like to see this fix get out so that my test suite can have useful output again, hah. If there's anything that still needs to be done on this PR to get #671 and #681 closed, please let us know. Thanks! |
From @davidism regarding his comment on deprecations above:
I'll be doing that work shortly and then prepping a release. |
This only showed up after rebasing onto current maintenance branch.
56d408c
to
078a04b
Compare
@woodb just to be clear to any other concerned observers of this repo, there are no known security vulnerabilities related to CVE-2019-7164 in any currently supported major versions of sqlalchemy as long as you are escaping user input in places in the docs that have clearly stated for many years they are intentionally not escaped. |
Thanks! especially for SQLALCHEMY_ENGINE_OPTIONS. |
ditto^ |
fixes #166 - make it possible to pass additional options to create_engine()
fixes #671, #681 - deprecation warnings from SA 1.3