Replace sync open() calls within async functions with aiofiles.open() in code examples

[cclauss]

% ruff --select=ASYNC --statistics .

2 ASYNC101 [ ] Async functions should not call open, time.sleep, or subprocess methods

% ruff rule ASYNC101

open-sleep-or-subprocess-in-async-function (ASYNC101)

Derived from the flake8-async linter.

What it does

Checks that async functions do not contain calls to open, time.sleep, or subprocess methods.

Why is this bad?

Blocking an async function via a blocking call will block the entire event loop, preventing it from executing other tasks while waiting for the call to complete, negating the benefits of asynchronous programming.

Instead of making a blocking call, use an equivalent asynchronous library or function.

Example

async def foo():
    time.sleep(1000)

Use instead:

async def foo():
    await asyncio.sleep(1000)

What do these changes do?

Are there changes in behavior for the user?

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_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 interesting 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]

Codecov Report

Merging #7383 (156428e) into master (9721c65) will not change coverage.
The diff coverage is n/a.

❗ Current head 156428e differs from pull request most recent head 70a1413. Consider uploading reports for the commit 70a1413 to get more accurate results

@@           Coverage Diff           @@
##           master    #7383   +/-   ##
=======================================
  Coverage   97.28%   97.28%           
=======================================
  Files         106      106           
  Lines       31440    31440           
  Branches     3932     3932           
=======================================
  Hits        30585    30585           
  Misses        650      650           
  Partials      205      205           

Flag	Coverage Δ
CI-GHA	97.22% <ø> (ø)
OS-Linux	96.89% <ø> (-0.01%)	⬇️
OS-Windows	95.35% <ø> (ø)
OS-macOS	96.58% <ø> (ø)
Py-3.10.11	95.27% <ø> (ø)
Py-3.10.12	96.79% <ø> (ø)
Py-3.11.0	96.51% <ø> (ø)
Py-3.8.10	95.24% <ø> (ø)
Py-3.8.17	96.72% <ø> (ø)
Py-3.9.13	95.24% <ø> (ø)
Py-3.9.17	96.75% <ø> (ø)
Py-pypy7.3.11	94.20% <ø> (-0.01%)	⬇️
VM-macos	96.58% <ø> (ø)
VM-ubuntu	96.89% <ø> (-0.01%)	⬇️
VM-windows	95.35% <ø> (ø)

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

📣 We’re building smart automated test selection to slash your CI/CD build times. Learn more

[webknjaz]

This looks quite invasive and combines several separate pointless changes. For example, adding a dependency that is not actually used in the library.
Also, ruff can only be added to pre-commit, not a random workflow that only multiplies the maintenance burden.
I'm 👎 on the change as it is. Some small bits could be added if discussed and implemented correctly, but not as a bunch of commits that have no visible purpose.

[Dreamsorcerer]

Not sure why the change to examples has disappeared?

[cclauss]

I removed it because the current CI requires adding both aiofiles and aiofiles-types to various requirements files which became part of comments in #7383 (review) After this PR lands, I can re-create the other so the steps are clear.