Some info and version compatibility table in the README also needs updating

Will do, I needed to make sure that I got all the code changes correctly first

Let me also test this locally before we merge it

Now I think we are good to go

Ok looks good to me 👍

So currently,

aica.api_version()
# >>> Error getting version details! Expected a map of `signed_packages` to include `aica_api_server`: 'aica_api_server'

aica.core_version()
# >>> {'message': 'b\'{"online":true,"signed_packages":{},"entitlements":["aica_studio_access","is_aica_developer"]}\'. You have requested this URI [/api/version] but did you mean /api//version or /api/swagger.json or /api//v2/features ?'}

Are those results expected and desired? Especially the second one seems weird to me

EDIT: these results are due to the fact that I was using a custom core, i guess. With the v4.1.0 core version i get

>>> aica.core_version() 
'4.1.0'
>>> aica.api_version()  
'4.1.1'

which makes sense, but I'm still wondering why we get You have requested this URI [/api/version] but did you mean /api//version or /api/swagger.json or /api//v2/features ?

EDIT 2:
if aica.core_version() returns a weird dict there if the core is not signed, it basically means that the api client is not usable with custom cores because the _requires_core_version decorator complains obviously...It needs a string input, not a dict

I am unsure about the URL "parsing" that is happening with startswith("http://") and such. What is this about?

I am unsure about the URL "parsing" that is happening with startswith("http://") and such. What is this about?

If we simply use an address like localhost (current default) or 127.0.0.1, the actual URL must be prepended with http://, otherwise we get a requests.exceptions.RequestException. But I also wanted to avoid prepending the http if the provided URL already contains it.

it basically means that the api client is not usable with custom cores

While this client is intended for official releases, it would of course be nice to use it with internal pre-release builds that don't have valid package signatures. I'll add a check for that case to bypass the version requirement with a warning

Still a few problems, are we happy with that?