We could later add http_response_text, which would return str, handling decoding.

Current features, compared to request_raw:

• Pass top-level arguments instead of a dictionary.
• May pass url as a positional argument.
• Allows using Pythonic snake case for top-level query parameters.

Some potential features:

• Allow a headers parameter, which automatically fills the corresponding API parameters.
• Allow an outputs parameter, supporting a flag-like way of defining which outputs to enable.

The point of using **kwargs instead of mapping all parameters is forward-compatibility.

It seems there could be a big overlap with data structures defined in https://github.com/scrapinghub/web-poet/blob/master/web_poet/page_inputs/http.py

+1

I'm thinking if python-zyte-api should somehow import web-poet to utilize such page_inputs or should the page_inputs themselves be moved outside of web-poet.

Later on, we'd need the functionalities of web_poet.page_inputs.http to process content-encoding when dealing with browserHtml.

I’ll see you and raise you: scrapy-plugins/scrapy-zyte-api#10 may be in a similar situation.

Do we want ExtractResult here to be a subclass of web_poet’s HttpResponse, or expose a compatible interface? Or is the problem only not to reinvent the wheel code-wise? Or do we want ExtractResult to expose httpResponseBody, httpResponseHeaders and browserHtml through 2 HttpResponse objects, or possibly a different, new web_poet object in the case of browserHtml?

Do we want ExtractResult here to be a subclass of web_poet’s HttpResponse, or expose a compatible interface? Or is the problem only not to reinvent the wheel code-wise?

I believe it's both. We'd want the ecosystem revolving around Zyte's extraction and crawling be similar in interface (i.e. web-poet, scrapy-poet, python-zyte-api, scrapy-zyte-api, etc).

I'm trying to think if there are some downsides in using web-poet for the Zyte API's client, but I can't think of any. I think it's more beneficial since web-poet would be used behind Zyte API. This means both server and client would use the same dependency promoting overall compatibility.

Or do we want ExtractResult to expose httpResponseBody, httpResponseHeaders and browserHtml through 2 HttpResponse objects, or possibly a different, new web_poet object in the case of browserHtml?

After trying to make httpResponseBody work with Text Responses in scrapy-plugins/scrapy-zyte-api#10, I realized that we'll need to read the headers easily. web_poet.httpResponseHeaders could easily accommodate Zyte API's formatting. For example, if we'd want to determine if a given response is text-based or not, we can check out the Content-Type header. However, Zyte API returns the headers like this:

"httpResponseHeaders": [..., {'name': 'content-type', 'value': 'text/html; charset=UTF-8'}, ...]

To search for this value, we'd need to iterate through the list of header key-value pairs. On the other hand, web-poet would easily have this as:

>>> headers = HttpResponseHeaders.from_name_value_pairs(zyte_api_response["httpResponseHeaders"])
>>> headers.get('Content-Type')
'text/html; charset=UTF-8'

There's a lot of benefits to using the existing features in web-poet similar to this one.

For the browserHtml, I think it would be worth representing it with another class, since web_poet.HttpResponseBody represents bytes.

+1

I'm thinking if python-zyte-api should somehow import web-poet to utilize such page_inputs or should the page_inputs themselves be moved outside of web-poet.

Later on, we'd need the functionalities of web_poet.page_inputs.http to process content-encoding when dealing with browserHtml.