Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Disallow creation of aiohttp objects without running event loop #3539

Merged
merged 2 commits into from
Jan 14, 2019

Conversation

asvetlov
Copy link
Member

ClientSession, Connector and others are affected.

Copy link
Member

@kxepal kxepal left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

👍

@codecov-io
Copy link

codecov-io commented Jan 14, 2019

Codecov Report

Merging #3539 into master will increase coverage by 0.04%.
The diff coverage is 100%.

Impacted file tree graph

@@            Coverage Diff             @@
##           master    #3539      +/-   ##
==========================================
+ Coverage   97.88%   97.92%   +0.04%     
==========================================
  Files          44       44              
  Lines        8615     8643      +28     
  Branches     1390     1404      +14     
==========================================
+ Hits         8433     8464      +31     
  Misses         75       75              
+ Partials      107      104       -3
Impacted Files Coverage Δ
aiohttp/helpers.py 97.22% <100%> (+0.48%) ⬆️
aiohttp/__init__.py 95.83% <0%> (-4.17%) ⬇️
aiohttp/client_reqrep.py 97.84% <0%> (+0.41%) ⬆️

Continue to review full report at Codecov.

Legend - Click here to learn more
Δ = absolute <relative> (impact), ø = not affected, ? = missing data
Powered by Codecov. Last update 2bec332...190a277. Read the comment docs.

@asvetlov asvetlov merged commit 8fbe7a1 into master Jan 14, 2019
@asvetlov asvetlov deleted the strict-running-loop branch January 14, 2019 22:44
@blueyed
Copy link
Contributor

blueyed commented Apr 19, 2019

Can you explain the reason for this?
I've thought that having it on the module level would be good / comfortable way to share it / use a single instance only.

@lock lock bot added the outdated label Apr 18, 2020
@lock lock bot locked as resolved and limited conversation to collaborators Apr 18, 2020
@psf-chronographer psf-chronographer bot added the bot:chronographer:provided There is a change note present in this PR label Apr 18, 2020
Sign up for free to subscribe to this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in.
Labels
bot:chronographer:provided There is a change note present in this PR outdated
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

4 participants