Fixing issue #7072

[cnicodeme]

Under some specific circumstances, _resolve_host can fail, which will lead to an exception Task was destroyed but it is pending!.

This PR fixes the issue.

What do these changes do?

Following suggestion from @michaelzus, applying host_resolved.cancel() when a CancelledError occurs stop the above issue to be raised.

Are there changes in behavior for the user?

None

Related issue number

Related issue : #7072

Checklist

• [x ] I think the code is well written
• Unit tests for the changes exist
• [ x] Documentation reflects the changes
• [ x] 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.
• [x ] 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]

Codecov Report

Merging #7608 (7c48398) into master (b6afdc3) will decrease coverage by 0.01%.
The diff coverage is 100.00%.

@@            Coverage Diff             @@
##           master    #7608      +/-   ##
==========================================
- Coverage   97.35%   97.35%   -0.01%     
==========================================
  Files         106      106              
  Lines       31513    31514       +1     
  Branches     3589     3589              
==========================================
  Hits        30679    30679              
- Misses        630      631       +1     
  Partials      204      204              

Flag	Coverage Δ
CI-GHA	97.27% <100.00%> (-0.01%)	⬇️
OS-Linux	96.94% <100.00%> (-0.01%)	⬇️
OS-Windows	95.40% <100.00%> (-0.01%)	⬇️
OS-macOS	96.60% <100.00%> (-0.01%)	⬇️
Py-3.10.11	95.33% <100.00%> (-0.01%)	⬇️
Py-3.10.13	96.81% <100.00%> (-0.01%)	⬇️
Py-3.11.5	96.51% <100.00%> (-0.01%)	⬇️
Py-3.8.10	95.30% <100.00%> (-0.01%)	⬇️
Py-3.8.18	96.74% <100.00%> (-0.01%)	⬇️
Py-3.9.13	95.29% <100.00%> (-0.01%)	⬇️
Py-3.9.18	96.77% <100.00%> (-0.01%)	⬇️
Py-pypy7.3.11	96.30% <100.00%> (-0.01%)	⬇️
VM-macos	96.60% <100.00%> (-0.01%)	⬇️
VM-ubuntu	96.94% <100.00%> (-0.01%)	⬇️
VM-windows	95.40% <100.00%> (-0.01%)	⬇️

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

Files Changed	Coverage Δ
aiohttp/connector.py	94.23% <100.00%> (+<0.01%)	⬆️

... and 1 file with indirect coverage changes

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

[Dreamsorcerer]

Thanks, do you think you could turn your reproducer into a test?

[cnicodeme]

No I'm sorry I don't know how to do that.

[Dreamsorcerer]

It looks like your reproducer just mocks out a method before making a request. You can mock it out properly in a test with mock.patch(). You can add a with pytest.warns() to catch any warnings and assert there are none.

[webknjaz]

Additionally to what Sam asked regarding adding a regression test, this change note must use RST syntax (hence double backticks, not single). And please, check out https://docs.aiohttp.org/en/stable/contributing.html#adding-change-notes-with-your-prs for the writing style to be used in the changelog. For example, in order for it to be coherent, the past tense should be used (or variants of the present tense referring to the changes as compared to the previous release).
You can also optionally add a byline. It's all described in that document.