Fix aiohttp deprecation warning and log level #28
Conversation
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
|
Your changes plus downgrading yaml to 0.9.3 (see aio-libs/yarl#55) fixed the proxy broker for me. Thank you very much! |
Prevent resolver session start to get stuck
Closed
|
Good work, @Lookyan and Adrian! Thank you all, guys =) |
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
In current version aiohttp throws DeprecationWarning because we don't use asynchronous context managers for sessions.
As we use python 3.5, I think it's ok to use them.
And also I fixed logging levels for some errors. I think it's a common error when proxy broker receives 500 HTTP code from proxy list site, because it is broken. But it is not an error of proxybroker and we should not log it with error level. I made logging these errors with lower level.
For now with these fixes, when we execute simple script from example folder we don't see any errors and get correct result.
What do you think about it, @constverum ?