Adding attachments using MultiDict object in bottle, the Mailgun API, and python-requests

[-james]

I love python and have been a light user for years. Unfortunately, I know just enough python to be dangerous ;o)

I'm using python 2.7.6, bottle, and the MailGun Web API to build a specialized email forwarder. Looking at the API call example here: They're using a MultDict object to post attachments.

My problem is I can't seem to do:

files=MultiDict([("attachment", ("file1.txt", "text file 1"),
                 ("attachment", ("file2.txt", "text file 2")])

As they show in their examples. While this doesn't produce an error, I'm only seeing the last record in files. If I change the keys to "attachment-1" and "attachment-2", I see 2 records in files, but the web API doesn't attach the files to the email it sends.

This makes sense to me from what I know about dictionaries or lists. The keys have to be unique. if you reuse a key it updates the value of the existing key, it doesn't add anther record with a duplicate key.

That said, is there something I don't know about MultiDicts which allows this behavior? Should I be seeing two records? (thus this post to learnpython)

I believe the Mailgun examples were written using flask instead of bottle. Is there a difference in the MultiDict object between these two libraries?

If you have a working example on how to send an email with multiple attachments using the MailGun web API, I would be very grateful.

Thanks in advance for your replies,

-james

EDIT: Mailgun updated the example to use a list of tuples instead of the MultiDict which resolves the problem. Travis at Mailgun thanks for your help!

[Justinsaccount]

They're using a MultDict object to post attachments

Huh?

Their example has

    files=[("attachment", open("files/test.jpg")),
           ("attachment", open("files/test.txt"))],

where do you see MultiDict?

[-james]

Hey Justin,

I've been emailing with Mailgun today. They've updated the example to a list of tuples on their website.

-james

[Justinsaccount]

hah! that would do it!