[3.10] Add server capability to check for Brotli compressed static files

[steverep]

Currently server only checks if static routes have a .gz extension and serves them with gzip encoding. These changes do the same for .br files with br encoding. Brotli is prioritized over gzip if both exist and are supported by the client, as it should almost always be a smaller content length.

I considered making a check for which is smaller if both exist, but figured it wouldn't be worth the extra file system call in the vast majority of cases (at least not for typical web formats). Users should simply use gzip if it's smaller than Brotli for any file.

Resolves #8062

(cherry picked from commit dfc9296)

What do these changes do?

Are there changes in behavior for the user?

Is it a substantial burden for the maintainers to support this?

Related issue number

Checklist

• I think the code is well written
• Unit tests for the changes exist
• Documentation reflects the changes
• If you provide code modification, please add yourself to CONTRIBUTORS.txt
  • The format is <Name> <Surname>.
  • Please keep alphabetical order, the file is sorted by names.
• Add a new news fragment into the CHANGES/ folder

  • name it <issue_or_pr_num>.<type>.rst (e.g. 588.bugfix.rst)

  • if you don't have an issue number, change it to the pull request
    number after creating the PR

    • .bugfix: A bug fix for something the maintainers deemed an
      improper undesired behavior that got corrected to match
      pre-agreed expectations.
    • .feature: A new behavior, public APIs. That sort of stuff.
    • .deprecation: A declaration of future API removals and breaking
      changes in behavior.
    • .breaking: When something public is removed in a breaking way.
      Could be deprecated in an earlier release.
    • .doc: Notable updates to the documentation structure or build
      process.
    • .packaging: Notes for downstreams about unobvious side effects
      and tooling. Changes in the test invocation considerations and
      runtime assumptions.
    • .contrib: Stuff that affects the contributor experience. e.g.
      Running tests, building the docs, setting up the development
      environment.
    • .misc: Changes that are hard to assign to any of the above
      categories.

  • Make sure to use full sentences with correct case and punctuation,
    for example:

    Fixed issue with non-ascii contents in doctest text files
    -- by :user:`contributor-gh-handle`.

    Use the past tense or the present tense a non-imperative mood,
    referring to what's changed compared to the last released version
    of this project.

[codecov]

Codecov Report

All modified and coverable lines are covered by tests ✅

Comparison is base (cda4a8b) 97.46% compared to head (f70f588) 97.46%.

Additional details and impacted files

@@           Coverage Diff           @@
##             3.10    #8160   +/-   ##
=======================================
  Coverage   97.46%   97.46%           
=======================================
  Files         108      108           
  Lines       32997    33010   +13     
  Branches     3946     3953    +7     
=======================================
+ Hits        32159    32172   +13     
  Misses        635      635           
  Partials      203      203           

Flag	Coverage Δ
CI-GHA	97.37% <97.36%> (-0.01%)	⬇️
OS-Linux	97.06% <97.36%> (-0.01%)	⬇️
OS-Windows	94.60% <97.36%> (-0.01%)	⬇️
OS-macOS	96.87% <94.73%> (-0.01%)	⬇️
Py-3.10.11	94.49% <94.73%> (-0.02%)	⬇️
Py-3.10.13	96.83% <94.73%> (-0.01%)	⬇️
Py-3.11.7	96.39% <94.73%> (-0.01%)	⬇️
Py-3.11.8	96.50% <94.73%> (-0.01%)	⬇️
Py-3.12.1	?
Py-3.8.10	94.48% <97.36%> (-0.01%)	⬇️
Py-3.8.18	96.78% <97.36%> (-0.01%)	⬇️
Py-3.9.13	94.49% <94.73%> (+<0.01%)	⬆️
Py-3.9.18	96.82% <94.73%> (-0.01%)	⬇️
Py-pypy7.3.15	96.35% <89.47%> (-0.01%)	⬇️
VM-macos	96.87% <94.73%> (-0.01%)	⬇️
VM-ubuntu	97.06% <97.36%> (-0.01%)	⬇️
VM-windows	94.60% <97.36%> (-0.01%)	⬇️

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

☔ View full report in Codecov by Sentry.
📢 Have feedback on the report? Share it here.

[webknjaz]

@steverep out of curiosity, did you use the cherry-picker tool over the plain git cherry-pick -x command?

[steverep]

@steverep out of curiosity, did you use the cherry-picker tool over the plain git cherry-pick -x command?

Yes, used the python tool.