Codecov Report

All modified and coverable lines are covered by tests ✅

Project coverage is 98.66%. Comparing base (5b654d5) to head (3b85fcb).
Report is 2 commits behind head on master.

@@            Coverage Diff             @@
##           master    #9511      +/-   ##
==========================================
+ Coverage   98.65%   98.66%   +0.01%     
==========================================
  Files         116      116              
  Lines       35482    35526      +44     
  Branches     4211     4215       +4     
==========================================
+ Hits        35003    35051      +48     
+ Misses        321      319       -2     
+ Partials      158      156       -2     

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

But, should we use a connection error instead of RuntimeError as suggested by someone in that issue? That would make it easier for someone to catch the exception, as TypeError/RuntimeError is not really obvious. @bdraco Any opinions on the exception?

Changing it from TypeError to RuntimeError is a breaking change. I think it would be safer to make a new exception that is derived from TypeError

Changing it from TypeError to RuntimeError is a breaking change. I think it would be safer to make a new exception that is derived from TypeError

Should the new exception be included in the client_exceptions.py module?

Changing it from TypeError to RuntimeError is a breaking change. I think it would be safer to make a new exception that is derived from TypeError

Should the new exception be included in the client_exceptions.py module?

I think one in web_exceptions for web_ws, and one in client_exceptions for client_ws

@bdraco updated with the suggested changes.

I have added the exception in just client_exceptions.py as web_exceptions.py seemed to contain http error related exceptions.

Would you please update the change log message and the opening text as well to reflect the most recent changes

CodSpeed Performance Report

Merging #9511 will not alter performance

_{Comparing ara-25:fix_exceptions_ws_receive_content (3b85fcb) with master (5b654d5)}

Summary

✅ 13 untouched benchmarks

@bdraco updated. Please have a look

It looks like there are 4 lines that need test coverage. Thanks

@bdraco I have completed tests for these changes

There might still be 2 uncovered lines showing up in the report, but they are not a part of the changes done in this PR and just include formatting changes.

Let me know if you need me to add tests for those as well. Thanks

The object paths can be a bit tricky. Check CHANGES.rst for previous usage to figure them out

https://github.com/aio-libs/aiohttp/actions/runs/11586225078/job/32256466974#step:13:1

Once it's all passing check the read the docs preview as it will show how it will appear in the changelog

Fixed the changelog refs and also made some changes to the docs.

I had to add documentation for the WSMessageTypeError in docs/client_reference.rst for its reference to correctly show up in changelog.

Additionally, can you please guide me about how where this exception should be added in the Hierarchy of exceptions section:

Preview of the changelog message (ignore highlighting)

Additionally, can you please guide me about how where this exception should be added in the Hierarchy of exceptions section:

I will take a look as soon as I can. Ran out of time for today.

Not sure if WSMessageTypeError should be mentioned in exceptions hierarchy because it is the standalone class which is inherited from TypeError only; it doesn't belong to exceptions tree.

@bdraco please feel free to merge if you have no objections.

Will run through it later today. Thanks

Also @bdraco, I was thinking if it would be a good idea to add the websocket message-type and optionally data information in the exception class so that the end users can use those if required:

raise WSMessageTypeError(
                f"Received message {msg.type}:{msg.data!r} is not WSMsgType.TEXT", received_msg_type=msg.type, received_msg_data=data, 
    

I'd worry a bit about storing a strong reference the whole payload in the Exception as Exceptions tend to get logged and collected by various systems which may have some undesirable memory impact

Let's not expand the scope of this PR. We can consider other changes in a followup

Backport to 3.11: 💔 cherry-picking failed — conflicts found

❌ Failed to cleanly apply 75ae623 on top of patchback/backports/3.11/75ae6236547f78fce9debb3788407311a7b8ecbb/pr-9511

Backporting merged PR #9511 into master

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/3.11/75ae6236547f78fce9debb3788407311a7b8ecbb/pr-9511 upstream/3.11

4. Now, cherry-pick PR Fix exceptions in websocket receive_* methods #9511 contents into that branch:

   $ git cherry-pick -x 75ae6236547f78fce9debb3788407311a7b8ecbb

   If it'll yell at you with something like fatal: Commit 75ae6236547f78fce9debb3788407311a7b8ecbb is a merge but no -m option was given., add -m 1 as follows instead:

   $ git cherry-pick -m1 -x 75ae6236547f78fce9debb3788407311a7b8ecbb

5. At this point, you'll probably encounter some merge conflicts. You must
   resolve them in to preserve the patch from PR Fix exceptions in websocket receive_* methods #9511 as close to the
   original as possible.
6. Push this branch to your fork on GitHub:

   $ git push origin patchback/backports/3.11/75ae6236547f78fce9debb3788407311a7b8ecbb/pr-9511

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.

backport #9676