Repository navigation
venv module produces spurious warning that location has moved #90329
Description
Activity
layday commented
on Dec 24, 2021 laydaymannequinMannequinAuthorAfter 6811fda
the venv module produces spurious warnings for venv paths which contain
DOS-encoded parts e.g. "USER~1" in "C:\Users\USER~1".
tempfile.gettempdir()returns legacy paths like these for
user temp dirs.MRE:
python -c "import tempfile import venv venv.create(tempfile.mkdtemp())" Actual environment location may have moved due to redirects, links or junctions. Requested location: "C:\Users\RUNNER~1\AppData\Local\Temp\tmpfoobar\Scripts\python.exe" Actual location: "C:\Users\runneradmin\AppData\Local\Temp\tmpfoobar\Scripts\python.exe"There's no point to making the user worry about short names, symlinks, or non-canonical mount points in the filesystem path of a virtual environment. It's still accessible where the user expects to find it. The problem for bpo-45337 is filesystem redirection in UWP apps, in particular for files and directories created under "%USERPROFILE%\AppData". The warning could be limited to just paths in that tree.
There's still the problem of the system using short names in %TEMP%, since by default that's under "%USERPROFILE%\AppData". Either an exception could be made for the temp directory, since it's never redirected (AFAIK), or support could be added for GetLongPathNameW() [1] as nt._getlongpathname().
---
[1] https://docs.microsoft.com/en-us/windows/win32/api/fileapi/nf-fileapi-getlongpathnamewThere are plenty of other ways to get a venv through a potentially unexpected path (turns out I've been doing one for years), which is why I went with the general warning rather than limiting it to specific behaviours that are subject to change outside of our control.
I'm not opposed to strengthening this check to ignore DOS encoded names, but I think it should remain for anything where the realised executable path isn't the same as what you'd assume from the requested path. Without being very aware of how your directories are all configured, it could be near impossible to diagnose, so the warning in the command-line tool is appropriate.
There are plenty of other ways to get a venv through a potentially
unexpected path (turns out I've been doing one for years)Examples would be appreciated because I'm drawing a blank here. A junction or directory symlink in the parent path shouldn't be a problem. Otherwise I'd prefer that the solution for bpo-45337 was limited to an app container and paths in "%USERPROFILE%\AppData" (excluding "%TEMP%"). An app container can be detected via the package family name, if any, as returned by GetCurrentPackageFamilyName().
My VHDX mounted in a directory is affected by this, and actually broke a couple of tools until I also mounted it as a drive. (Using a VHDX helps bypass a lot of filesystem related perf impacts on Windows, so it's worth the occasional broken tool.)
I suspect (but haven't tested) that some file sharing handlers or attached devices could also hit it - thinking here of IoT devices that provide a filesystem-like interface.
Either way, I don't think the warning is spurious, and while it's not particularly helpful for people who pass in 8.3 names that are then expanded (it shouldn't ever happen the other way), that's easily fixed on the user's side. (And tempfile, which clearly needs fixing.)
I'm also *strongly against* warnings/errors that only occur based on a decision you made ages ago (or that someone else made for you), such as how you installed Python. Right now we have a warning that can be explained in exactly the same way on every platform and every circumstance, but Eryk's proposal/preference would suddenly make the case for the warning way too complex. Tutorials and teachers don't get to ignore it just because it only happens to some of their readers/students, and so we only make things worse for them by making it harder to understand. Better to have a simple, consistent message in this case.
My VHDX mounted in a directory is affected by this
I created a VHDX and mounted it in a directory. It's just a regular volume mount point with a junction (IO_REPARSE_TAG_MOUNT_POINT). That won't cause any problems, so I guess your setup must be different in some way.
I suspect (but haven't tested) that some file sharing handlers or
attached devices could also hit it - thinking here of IoT devices
that provide a filesystem-like interface.My takeaway is that because filesystem filter drivers on some systems may arbitrarily redirect some paths in some cases, and redirect differently or not at all in some other context, then we need to always log a warning showing the real path and always embed the real path in pip.exe. The only clear example we have is bpo-45337, but we're erring on the side of caution instead of targeting the warning at the one known case. The generic approach happens to also include any common use of directory symbolic links or junctions, but it's not practical to handle them differently. You're open to special casing short DOS names, however, e.g. by comparing the real path to the long path name from GetLongPathNameW().
Note that if the user continues to use the path with a reparse point or redirection to access the virtual environment (if possible; it's not for bpo-45337), then running
python -m pipwill install scripts or executable script wrappers that refer to the accessed path, not the real path. pip uses distlib for entrypoint scripts. Apparently distlib doesn't resolve the real path of sys.executable when creating the script shebang.For POSIX, including macOS, I don't know the range of possibilities for dependent filesystem redirection. Bind mounts (i.e. mounting an arbitrary path on a directory) can be an issue since they're temporary unless configured in /etc/fstab. However, we can't do anything to warn about them because POSIX realpath() doesn't resolve them.
warning that can be explained in exactly the same way on every platform
I guess you mean every edition of Windows.
- added a commit that references this issue
on Jan 10, 2024 Pull request is up that will convert paths to the long version and compare again before warning. Would like a review before merging though.
Thanks Vinay for reviewing!
Note: these values reflect the state of the issue at the time it was migrated and might not reflect the current state.
Show more details
GitHub fields:
bugs.python.org fields:
Linked PRs