Fixes for strict-bytes

[Dreamsorcerer]

This will be default behaviour in mypy 2, so best to fix it early.

It would be good if anybody else can check over these, the existing code seems a little confused with when it wants bytes only or will allow bytes/bytearray/memoryview.

[Dreamsorcerer]

I'm unclear if the remaining errors are a bug with us or with typeshed (which says the method doesn't support memoryview[bytes]).

[codecov]

Codecov Report

All modified and coverable lines are covered by tests ✅

Project coverage is 98.69%. Comparing base (97f5e2d) to head (982ed47).

✅ All tests successful. No failed tests found.

Additional details and impacted files

@@           Coverage Diff           @@
##           master   #10454   +/-   ##
=======================================
  Coverage   98.69%   98.69%           
=======================================
  Files         122      122           
  Lines       37180    37185    +5     
  Branches     2058     2059    +1     
=======================================
+ Hits        36695    36700    +5     
  Misses        338      338           
  Partials      147      147           

Flag	Coverage Δ
CI-GHA	98.58% <95.23%> (-0.01%)	⬇️
OS-Linux	98.24% <95.23%> (-0.01%)	⬇️
OS-Windows	96.18% <95.23%> (+<0.01%)	⬆️
OS-macOS	97.35% <95.23%> (-0.02%)	⬇️
Py-3.10.11	97.27% <90.47%> (+<0.01%)	⬆️
Py-3.10.16	97.81% <90.47%> (-0.01%)	⬇️
Py-3.11.11	97.90% <90.47%> (-0.01%)	⬇️
Py-3.11.9	97.35% <90.47%> (-0.01%)	⬇️
Py-3.12.8	98.35% <85.71%> (-0.01%)	⬇️
Py-3.13.1	98.34% <85.71%> (-0.01%)	⬇️
Py-3.13.2	97.32% <85.71%> (?)
Py-3.9.13	97.16% <90.47%> (-0.01%)	⬇️
Py-3.9.21	97.69% <90.47%> (-0.01%)	⬇️
Py-pypy7.3.16	97.29% <90.47%> (-0.01%)	⬇️
VM-macos	97.35% <95.23%> (-0.02%)	⬇️
VM-ubuntu	98.24% <95.23%> (-0.01%)	⬇️
VM-windows	96.18% <95.23%> (+<0.01%)	⬆️

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

☔ View full report in Codecov by Sentry.
📢 Have feedback on the report? Share it here.

[codspeed-hq]

CodSpeed Performance Report

Merging #10454 will improve performances by 12.08%

_{Comparing strict-bytes (982ed47) with master (97f5e2d)}

Summary

⚡ 1 improvements
✅ 47 untouched benchmarks

Benchmarks breakdown

	Benchmark	BASE	HEAD	Change
⚡	test_one_hundred_get_requests_iter_chunks_on_512kib_chunked_payload[pyloop]	108.3 ms	96.6 ms	+12.08%

[asvetlov]

Would you backport the PR

[Dreamsorcerer]

Would you backport the PR

It changes the (apparent) API, so I'd prefer to avoid it. Hopefully will be focusing on v4 after the typing work I'm doing.

[asvetlov]

Up to you, any decision is good to me.

[asvetlov]

Yes, focusing on V4 would be good.

Personally, I should review the diff and file a list of required changes related to my commits on master that were not backported.
I have quite a tight schedule this month; but the task is in my to-do list.

[Dreamsorcerer]

I'm unclear if the remaining errors are a bug with us or with typeshed (which says the method doesn't support memoryview[bytes]).

@bdraco I think you've played with that code fairly recently, any idea if memoryview[bytes] is actually supported?