configure raise_for_status per request feature

[sky-code]

What do these changes do?

Add an ability to specify raise_for_status parameter per request

Are there changes in behavior for the user?

This changes has full backward compatibility

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_id>.<type> for example (588.bugfix)
  • if you don't have an issue_id change it to the pr id after creating the pr
  • ensure type is one of the following:
    • .feature: Signifying a new feature.
    • .bugfix: Signifying a bug fix.
    • .doc: Signifying a documentation improvement.
    • .removal: Signifying a deprecation or removal of public API.
    • .misc: A ticket has been closed, but it is not of interest to users.
  • Make sure to use full sentences with correct case and punctuation, for example: "Fix issue with non-ascii contents in doctest text files."

[codecov-io]

Codecov Report

Merging #3073 into master will increase coverage by <.01%.
The diff coverage is n/a.

@@            Coverage Diff             @@
##           master    #3073      +/-   ##
==========================================
+ Coverage   98.11%   98.11%   +<.01%     
==========================================
  Files          42       42              
  Lines        7747     7750       +3     
  Branches     1349     1349              
==========================================
+ Hits         7601     7604       +3     
  Misses         51       51              
  Partials       95       95

Impacted Files	Coverage Δ
aiohttp/connector.py	98.18% <0%> (ø)	⬆️
aiohttp/client_proto.py	96% <0%> (+0.05%)	⬆️

---

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 3dfc123...5bee5d1. Read the comment docs.

[asvetlov]

The change has a price: additional API parameter that should be documented and remembered.
Client API already has too long list of available parameters, we should be careful with providing a new one.

On another hand the change doesn't bring a new functionality or saves lines of code. The following snippets are equal:

async with client.get(url, raise_for_status=True) as resp:
    await resp.text()
...
async with client.get(url) as resp:
    resp.raise_for_status()
    await resp.text()

I need a serious reason to approve the Pull Request.

[sky-code]

Main reason for this new parameter is to override value provided to ClientSession

For example, you have ApiClient class with configured ClientSession object property, and you use this client session in ApiClient methods, for 10 methods it's ok to have raise_for_status=True but for another 3 methods you need raise_for_status=False, with current api this is impossible.
If you set raise_for_status=True - you set it for all request without ability to disable it for any request, so this feature not usable if you need it for most of cases but not for all cases.

I want to enable raise_for_status by default and override it when I need to check response code beyond 200, so this is inverted pattern from checking resp.raise_for_status() manually every time to setting raise_for_status=False when I expect non 200 response.

async with client.get(url) as resp:
    assert resp.status == 404 # if raise_for_status=True you won't be able to get here
    # so you end up with not use raise_for_status in ClientSession

async with client.get(url, raise_for_status=False) as resp:
    assert resp.status == 404 # now now you can reach here

[asvetlov]

Well, this is another story.
Documentation should be updated, your use case should be mentioned.

[sky-code]

I have added documentation

[asvetlov]

Thanks

[lock]

This thread has been automatically locked since there has not been any recent activity after it was closed. Please open a [new issue] for related bugs.
If you feel like there's important points made in this discussion, please include those exceprts into that [new issue].
[new issue]: https://github.com/aio-libs/aiohttp/issues/new