-
-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 7.1k
Honor Accept header q-values during renderer selection #9988
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
Open
zainnadeem786
wants to merge
2
commits into
encode:main
Choose a base branch
from
zainnadeem786:fix/accept-header-q-values
base: main
Could not load branches
Branch not found: {{ refName }}
Loading
Could not load tags
Nothing to show
Loading
Are you sure you want to change the base?
Some commits from the old base branch may be removed from the timeline,
and old review comments may become outdated.
+95
−12
Open
Changes from all commits
Commits
Show all changes
2 commits
Select commit
Hold shift + click to select a range
File filter
Filter by extension
Conversations
Failed to load comments.
Loading
Jump to
Jump to file
Failed to load files.
Loading
Diff view
Diff view
There are no files selected for viewing
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Oops, something went wrong.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
This will need to be checked. What does "negatively impacts caching" mean? We'll need to understand the trade-off we're making here. It might not be worth it after all...
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Hi @browniebroke
Thanks for raising this. I spent some time looking into the history and the relevant HTTP specifications to better understand the trade-off.
From what I could find, this note was introduced in commit
efabd2b(2012), but I couldn't find any accompanying discussion or rationale beyond the inline documentation itself.Looking at RFC 9110/9111, my understanding is that the caching concern is primarily about server-driven content negotiation and
Vary: Accept, rather than q-values themselves. Supporting q-values can increaseAcceptheader variation and therefore cache-key cardinality, which may reduce shared-cache hit rates, but it does not inherently make caching incorrect.RFC 9111 even references q-values as a ranking mechanism when selecting among stored representations, and frameworks such as Django and Werkzeug already take quality values into account (with their own policy choices around wildcards and server preference).
My goal with this PR was to keep the change as small and targeted as possible:
q=0as unacceptable,That said, if the cache-key/cardinality trade-off is considered too significant for the default negotiator, I'm happy to discuss alternative approaches or narrow the scope further.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Yes, exactly. I think that's the main thing we need to consider here: if we introduce support for q-values, folks using will see their cache usage suddenly increase. Given how much this was requested (never before you did), I'm so far in the camp that it's not worth the risk changing this.
Can you link to where this is happening in Django? That would be helpful to learn more...
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Thanks @browniebroke , that's a fair concern. I took another look at Django's implementation.
The relevant code is here:
HttpRequest.accepted_types,accepted_types_by_precedence,accepted_type(),get_preferred_type(), andaccepts():https://github.com/django/django/blob/main/django/http/request.py#L93-L151
MediaType.quality, which parses theqparameter:https://github.com/django/django/blob/main/django/http/request.py#L726-L793
I should slightly qualify my earlier statement. Django does take
qvalues into account in its request helper APIs it parses theAcceptheader, filters out media ranges withq=0, and sorts accepted media types by quality and specificity. However, Django is not performing DRF-style renderer selection, so it isn't a direct one-to-one comparison.I also agree with your cache-cardinality concern. My understanding is that
qvalues themselves don't make caching incorrect (that is handled throughVary: Accept), but supporting more client preference variations can reduce cache reuse and change renderer selection for existing clients that already sendqvalues.Given that compatibility concern, I'd be happy to narrow the scope of this PR if you think that would be a better direction. One option would be to only honor
q=0, ensuring DRF never selects a renderer that the client has explicitly marked as unacceptable, while preserving the current renderer-order behaviour for non-zeroqvalues.Would a narrower
q=0-only approach be something you'd be more comfortable considering?