fix: Exclude content-length from response headers in route_general_transcriptions #733
Conversation
…anscriptions Signed-off-by: fidoriel <[email protected]>
Summary of ChangesHello @fidoriel, I'm Gemini Code Assist1! I'm currently reviewing this pull request and will post my feedback shortly. In the meantime, here's a summary to help you and other reviewers quickly get up to speed! This pull request addresses a client-side issue related to incorrect Highlights
Using Gemini Code AssistThe full guide for Gemini Code Assist can be found on our documentation page, here are some quick tips. Invoking Gemini You can request assistance from Gemini at any point by creating a comment using either
Customization To customize Gemini Code Assist for GitHub experience, repository maintainers can create a configuration file and/or provide a custom code review style guide (such as PEP-8 for Python) by creating and adding files to a Limitations & Feedback Gemini Code Assist may make mistakes. Please leave feedback on any instances where its feedback is incorrect or counter productive. You can react with 👍 and 👎 on @gemini-code-assist comments. If you're interested in giving your feedback about your experience with Gemini Code Assist for Github and other Google products, sign up here. You can also get AI-powered code generation, chat, as well as code reviews directly in the IDE at no cost with the Gemini Code Assist IDE Extension. Footnotes
|
![gemini-code-assist[bot]](https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/in/956858?s=60&v=4){kind=small}
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Code Review
This pull request correctly fixes an issue in route_general_transcriptions where an incorrect content-length header from a backend could be proxied to the client. By excluding this header, the router allows JSONResponse to compute and set the correct value, preventing potential client-side errors. The change is sound. I have added one suggestion to improve the code's readability and maintainability by extracting the list of excluded headers into a separate set. It might also be worth investigating if a similar change is needed for streaming responses in route_general_request in a future pull request.
| headers = { | ||
| k: v | ||
| for k, v in backend_response.headers.items() | ||
| if k.lower() not in ("content-encoding", "transfer-encoding", "connection") | ||
| if k.lower() | ||
| not in ( | ||
| "content-length", | ||
| "content-encoding", | ||
| "transfer-encoding", | ||
| "connection", | ||
| ) | ||
| } |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
For better readability and maintainability, it's a good practice to define the set of excluded headers separately. Using a set is also more idiomatic and typically more performant for membership testing than a tuple.
| headers = { | |
| k: v | |
| for k, v in backend_response.headers.items() | |
| if k.lower() not in ("content-encoding", "transfer-encoding", "connection") | |
| if k.lower() | |
| not in ( | |
| "content-length", | |
| "content-encoding", | |
| "transfer-encoding", | |
| "connection", | |
| ) | |
| } | |
| excluded_headers = { | |
| "content-length", | |
| "content-encoding", | |
| "transfer-encoding", | |
| "connection", | |
| } | |
| headers = { | |
| k: v | |
| for k, v in backend_response.headers.items() | |
| if k.lower() not in excluded_headers | |
| } |
|
@zerofishnoodles the broken ci looks like the k8s setup is broken and not related to this pr ^^ |
Yes! The CI was broken. Fixed, rerunning the ci now :) |
2 participants
This ignores the content-length for transcription endpoint because the content length gets wrong sometimes if the encoding by router differs from encoding by server (which can be handled by the code, just clients go crazy if they expect more data)