Make it easier to debug close reason assertions

[DoctorJohn]

Description

Before this PR, Pytest could not display the diff between the expected and actual close reason because the assertion was hidden behind an assert_reason method.
Now, Pytest shows a pretty diff, making it easier to debug unexpected WebSocket close reasons in tests.

Types of Changes

• Core
• Bugfix
• New feature
• Enhancement/optimization
• Documentation

Summary by Sourcery

Enhance WebSocket test assertions by replacing the assert_reason method with a close_reason property, enabling Pytest to show detailed diffs for assertion errors, thus improving the debugging process.

Enhancements:

• Replace the assert_reason method with a close_reason property to improve the readability of assertion errors in WebSocket tests.

Tests:

• Update WebSocket test assertions to use the close_reason property instead of the assert_reason method, allowing Pytest to display a detailed diff for easier debugging.

[sourcery-ai]

Reviewer's Guide by Sourcery

This pull request enhances the debugging experience for WebSocket close reason assertions in tests. It replaces the assert_reason method with a direct comparison of the close_reason property, allowing Pytest to display a more informative diff when assertions fail.

Updated class diagram for WebSocketClient classes

classDiagram
    class WebSocketClient {
        +int close_code()
        +bool closed()
        +Optional~str~ close_reason
    }

    class AioHttpClient {
        +int close_code()
        +bool closed()
        +Optional~str~ close_reason
    }

    class AsgiClient {
        +int close_code()
        +bool closed()
        +Optional~str~ close_reason
    }

    class ChannelsClient {
        +int close_code()
        +bool closed()
        +Optional~str~ close_reason
    }

    class LitestarClient {
        +int close_code()
        +bool closed()
        +Optional~str~ close_reason
    }

    WebSocketClient <|-- AioHttpClient
    WebSocketClient <|-- AsgiClient
    WebSocketClient <|-- ChannelsClient
    WebSocketClient <|-- LitestarClient

Loading

File-Level Changes

Change	Details	Files
Replace assert_reason method with close_reason property	Remove assert_reason method from WebSocketClient classes Add close_reason property to WebSocketClient classes Update all test assertions to use assert ws.close_reason == ... instead of ws.assert_reason(...)	tests/http/clients/aiohttp.py tests/http/clients/asgi.py tests/http/clients/channels.py tests/http/clients/litestar.py tests/http/clients/base.py
Update WebSocket close reason assertions in test files	Replace ws.assert_reason(...) calls with assert ws.close_reason == ...	tests/websockets/test_graphql_transport_ws.py tests/websockets/test_websockets.py tests/websockets/test_graphql_ws.py

---

Tips and commands

Interacting with Sourcery

• Trigger a new review: Comment @sourcery-ai review on the pull request.
• Continue discussions: Reply directly to Sourcery's review comments.
• Generate a GitHub issue from a review comment: Ask Sourcery to create an
  issue from a review comment by replying to it.
• Generate a pull request title: Write @sourcery-ai anywhere in the pull
  request title to generate a title at any time.
• Generate a pull request summary: Write @sourcery-ai summary anywhere in
  the pull request body to generate a PR summary at any time. You can also use
  this command to specify where the summary should be inserted.

Customizing Your Experience

Access your dashboard to:

• Enable or disable review features such as the Sourcery-generated pull request
  summary, the reviewer's guide, and others.
• Change the review language.
• Add, remove or edit custom review instructions.
• Adjust other review settings.

Getting Help

• Contact our support team for questions or feedback.
• Visit our documentation for detailed guides and information.
• Keep in touch with the Sourcery team by following us on X/Twitter, LinkedIn or GitHub.

[sourcery-ai]

Hey @DoctorJohn - I've reviewed your changes and they look great!

Here's what I looked at during the review

• 🟢 General issues: all looks good
• 🟢 Security: all looks good
• 🟢 Testing: all looks good
• 🟢 Complexity: all looks good
• 🟢 Documentation: all looks good

---

Sourcery is free for open source - if you like our reviews please consider sharing them ✨

• X
• Mastodon
• LinkedIn
• Facebook

_{Help me be more useful! Please click 👍 or 👎 on each comment and I'll use the feedback to improve your reviews.}

[codecov]

Codecov Report

All modified and coverable lines are covered by tests ✅

Project coverage is 96.82%. Comparing base (34b40d4) to head (524d9fa).
Report is 4 commits behind head on main.

Additional details and impacted files

@@           Coverage Diff           @@
##             main    #3659   +/-   ##
=======================================
  Coverage   96.82%   96.82%           
=======================================
  Files         503      503           
  Lines       33409    33414    +5     
  Branches     5583     5587    +4     
=======================================
+ Hits        32348    32354    +6     
  Misses        830      830           
+ Partials      231      230    -1     

[codspeed-hq]

CodSpeed Performance Report

Merging #3659 will not alter performance

_{Comparing DoctorJohn:improve-close-reason-assertions (524d9fa) with main (d7e8a9b)}

Summary

✅ 15 untouched benchmarks