ref(wsgi): Update _werkzeug vendor to newer version

[mgaligniana]

Fixes GH-3516

[codecov]

Codecov Report

❌ Patch coverage is 44.44444% with 15 lines in your changes missing coverage. Please review.
✅ Project coverage is 83.41%. Comparing base (5a122b5) to head (ba2c350).

Files with missing lines	Patch %	Lines
sentry_sdk/_werkzeug.py	44.44%	11 Missing and 4 partials ⚠️

Additional details and impacted files

@@            Coverage Diff             @@
##           master    #4793      +/-   ##
==========================================
- Coverage   84.47%   83.41%   -1.07%     
==========================================
  Files         158      158              
  Lines       16506    16512       +6     
  Branches     2865     2864       -1     
==========================================
- Hits        13944    13773     -171     
- Misses       1712     1889     +177     
  Partials      850      850              

Files with missing lines	Coverage Δ
sentry_sdk/_werkzeug.py	54.54% <44.44%> (+6.39%)	⬆️

... and 8 files with indirect coverage changes

[sentrivana]

Thanks for the PR @mgaligniana -- I think the HTTP_X_FORWARDED_HOST handling needs to be added manually on top of the vendored in code. As far as I can tell we also did that in the current version as the original upstream 1.0.1 version also doesn't contain it.

[mgaligniana]

🎗️ The previous condition was: if use_x_forwarded_for and "HTTP_X_FORWARDED_HOST" in environ:

But if we have use_x_forwarded_for in True doesn't mean HTTP_X_FORWARDED_HOST will be present?

[sentrivana]

Yeah AFAIT this doesn't translate to the old logic 1:1 since before, if use_x_forwarded_for was True but there was no HTTP_X_FORWARDED_HOST, we would fall back to the other headers, whereas here, we wouldn't. We shouldn't assume the header is there, it's more like, if it's there, use it. So this probably needs an extra check:

environ["HTTP_X_FORWARDED_HOST"]
if use_x_forwarded_for and environ.get("HTTP_X_FORWARDED_HOST")
else environ.get("HTTP_HOST")

[mgaligniana]

Ok, Seer 🎉 liked!

But codecov not, should I add new tests for the new vendor?

Edited: I think yes because Anton said:

Also make sure this code is tested to have a high test coverage. (maybe by vendoring in the related tests from Werkzeug?)

But do you think I should copy-paste the test from werkzeug to get_host for example?

[sentrivana]

But do you think I should copy-paste the test from werkzeug to get_host for example?

Tests would be great. I think the one you linked would be good, plus something custom for the HTTP_X_FORWARDED_HOST stuff.

[mgaligniana]

So adding that now we have