[Matthias1]

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).

[e0a74c]

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,
    ...

[thamer]

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())

[esjeon]

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.

[disgruntledphd2]

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.

[odonnellryan]

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

[grenoire]

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.

[lambdaba]

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

[snicker7]

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

[odonnellryan]

It'll certainly work, just seems sloppy.

[bennyg]

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.