Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submitlogin

I'm not against "copying" code. I just looked up "python build url query" The first link describes the `urllib.parse. urlencode` function which takes a dict.

So I would build the query like so:

    from urllib.parse import urlencode
    urlencode({
        "action": "query",
        "format": "json",
        ...
        "gscoord": f"{str(latitude.value)}|{str(longitude.value)}",
    })
I think this is orders of magnitude clearer code. But that's a parameter that's subjective that CoPilot can't adjust for (although it can be better).


I'm surprised no one has suggested using `requests` considering how easy, safe and readable it is:

    >>> import requests, pprint
    >>> 
    >>> 
    >>> url = "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/api.php"
    >>> resp = requests.get(
    ...     url, 
    ...     params=dict(
    ...         action="query",
    ...         list="geosearch",
    ...         format="json",
    ...         gsradius=10000,
    ...         gscoord=f"{latitude.value}|{longitude.value}"
    ...     )
    ... )
    >>> 
    >>> pprint.pprint(resp.json())
    {'batchcomplete': '',
     'query': {'geosearch': [{'dist': 26.2,
                              'lat': 37.7868194444444,
                              'lon': -122.399905555556,
                              'ns': 0,
    ...


For what it's worth, Copilot can do it.

I typed the following prompt:

    def search_wikipedia(lat, lon):
        """
        use "requests" to do a geosearch on Wikipedia and pretty-print the resulting JSON
        """
And it completed it with:

    r = requests.get('https://en.wikipedia.org/w/api.php?action=query&list=geosearch&gsradius=10000&gscoord={0}|{1}&gslimit=20&format=json'.format(lat, lon))
    pprint.pprint(r.json())


It's like a junior dev who doesn't quit unnecessary code golfing. Somehow the AI is more comfortable with string-based URL manipulation, which is a straight anti-pattern.


Presumably because that's what it's seen in the training data. Remember, it doesn't care about what the code does, it's just doing a search for similar looking code.


That doesn't exactly do what the guy above you was talking about, though.


That's what the rest of the thread is complaining about, it's still slapping the strings in there with basic formatting. No different than the top level approach.


This. Code should be optimized for reading, I think this kind of code is OK for exploratory stuff, but needs to be rewritten later.


Well. Code should be optimized first for correctness, and simple string concatenation will not work for URL params.


It'll certainly work, just seems sloppy.


Plenty of edge cases there (e.g. url encoding), but I don't want to preach to the choir and rabbit hole on this minor detail.




Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: