[3.9] Fix CI

[Dreamsorcerer]

No description provided.

[webknjaz]

Looks like new CI failures appeared

[Dreamsorcerer]

@webknjaz Does XPASS mean the test is expected to fail, but has now started passing?

Not sure if it should just be updated, as ubuntu 3.11 passed, but have got this XPASS on ubuntu 3.10 and mac 3.11. Seems a bit flaky maybe..

[Dreamsorcerer]

We have quite a bit of flakiness regardless at the moment. CI is failing 50+% of the time on master, and that Windows 3.11 test holds everything up as it seems to timeout after 15 mins.

[Dreamsorcerer]

Hmm, these ones appear to relate to ClientRequest.loop. I'd be inclined to remove this attribute, and then remove those tests too.

[webknjaz]

Does XPASS mean the test is expected to fail, but has now started passing?

Yes, which might mean some changes in stdlib when GHA updates the Python patch version or the deps updates. But since there were no deps updates, I'd blame GH updating their VMs or Python builds.
Note that the (strict) marker means that the xpass will fail the test session. It exists so that if known bugs get fixed (sometimes accidently), this would become evident immediately.

[webknjaz]

Hm, I didn't realize it's a PR against 3.9. So maybe you're right that the behavior might be not the same.

[Dreamsorcerer]

I've just noticed these tests aren't in master. I don't think they really make sense either, e.g. ClientRequest shouldn't be instantiated by the user, and would only be done internally within a running loop, so a test that verifies instantiating it outside of a running loop seems pointless.

[webknjaz]

The reason they may be missing in master might be that it might've added a breaking change, modifying the behavior, though. In this case, it'd be reasonable to have them in 3.9 but not in master.

[codecov]

Codecov Report

Merging #7143 (e7e5575) into 3.9 (592c1bb) will increase coverage by 0.07%.
The diff coverage is 100.00%.

@@            Coverage Diff             @@
##              3.9    #7143      +/-   ##
==========================================
+ Coverage   97.10%   97.17%   +0.07%     
==========================================
  Files         107      107              
  Lines       31345    31346       +1     
  Branches     3989     3989              
==========================================
+ Hits        30439    30462      +23     
+ Misses        687      667      -20     
+ Partials      219      217       -2     

Flag	Coverage Δ
CI-GHA	97.07% <100.00%> (+0.07%)	⬆️
OS-Linux	96.75% <100.00%> (+0.04%)	⬆️
OS-Windows	94.34% <100.00%> (+0.05%)	⬆️
OS-macOS	96.30% <100.00%> (?)
Py-3.10.8	?
Py-3.10.9	96.79% <100.00%> (?)
Py-3.11.0	95.20% <100.00%> (-0.01%)	⬇️
Py-3.7.15	96.55% <100.00%> (+<0.01%)	⬆️
Py-3.7.9	94.19% <100.00%> (+<0.01%)	⬆️
Py-3.8.10	94.11% <100.00%> (+<0.01%)	⬆️
Py-3.8.15	96.45% <100.00%> (+<0.01%)	⬆️
Py-3.9.13	94.12% <100.00%> (?)
Py-3.9.15	?
Py-3.9.16	96.47% <100.00%> (?)
Py-pypy7.3.10	93.88% <100.00%> (?)
VM-macos	96.30% <100.00%> (?)
VM-ubuntu	96.75% <100.00%> (+0.04%)	⬆️
VM-windows	94.34% <100.00%> (+0.05%)	⬆️

Flags with carried forward coverage won't be shown. Click here to find out more.

Impacted Files	Coverage Δ
aiohttp/helpers.py	93.93% <100.00%> (+0.01%)	⬆️
tests/test_client_request.py	99.60% <100.00%> (ø)
tests/test_streams.py	100.00% <100.00%> (ø)
tests/test_web_app.py	98.68% <100.00%> (ø)
tests/autobahn/test_autobahn.py	98.33% <0.00%> (ø)
tests/test_connector.py	97.41% <0.00%> (+0.13%)	⬆️
tests/test_run_app.py	97.32% <0.00%> (+0.59%)	⬆️
tests/conftest.py	96.19% <0.00%> (+3.80%)	⬆️
tests/autobahn/client/client.py	96.42% <0.00%> (+49.99%)	⬆️

📣 We’re building smart automated test selection to slash your CI/CD build times. Learn more

[Dreamsorcerer]

Hmm, seems that setting it to pass in <=3.10 works fine. No idea why that's suddenly changed in 3.10. I still think the tests are pointless, but if they're passing, might as well leave them for now.

[patchback]

Backport to 3.8: 💔 cherry-picking failed — conflicts found

❌ Failed to cleanly apply c919bfa on top of patchback/backports/3.8/c919bfa616ed2fe412ffb0e2f5dcefae993436f8/pr-7143

Backporting merged PR #7143 into 3.9

1. Ensure you have a local repo clone of your fork. Unless you cloned it
   from the upstream, this would be your origin remote.
2. Make sure you have an upstream repo added as a remote too. In these
   instructions you'll refer to it by the name upstream. If you don't
   have it, here's how you can add it:

   $ git remote add upstream https://github.com/aio-libs/aiohttp.git

3. Ensure you have the latest copy of upstream and prepare a branch
   that will hold the backported code:

   $ git fetch upstream
   $ git checkout -b patchback/backports/3.8/c919bfa616ed2fe412ffb0e2f5dcefae993436f8/pr-7143 upstream/3.8

4. Now, cherry-pick PR [3.9] Fix CI #7143 contents into that branch:

   $ git cherry-pick -x c919bfa616ed2fe412ffb0e2f5dcefae993436f8

   If it'll yell at you with something like fatal: Commit c919bfa616ed2fe412ffb0e2f5dcefae993436f8 is a merge but no -m option was given., add -m 1 as follows intead:

   $ git cherry-pick -m1 -x c919bfa616ed2fe412ffb0e2f5dcefae993436f8

5. At this point, you'll probably encounter some merge conflicts. You must
   resolve them in to preserve the patch from PR [3.9] Fix CI #7143 as close to the
   original as possible.
6. Push this branch to your fork on GitHub:

   $ git push origin patchback/backports/3.8/c919bfa616ed2fe412ffb0e2f5dcefae993436f8/pr-7143

7. Create a PR, ensure that the CI is green. If it's not — update it so that
   the tests and any other checks pass. This is it!
   Now relax and wait for the maintainers to process your pull request
   when they have some cycles to do reviews. Don't worry — they'll tell you if
   any improvements are necessary when the time comes!

🤖 @patchback
I'm built with octomachinery and
my source is open — https://github.com/sanitizers/patchback-github-app.