Fix 'I/O operation on closed file' and 'Form data has been processed already' upon redirect on multipart data

[GLGDLY]

What do these changes do?

Fix 'I/O operation on closed file' and 'Form data has been processed already' upon redirect on multipart data, based on the discussion in #6853 .

This approach tries to pre-build Payload object for the data passing into the request, before the redirect while True loop starts, so we can reuse the same Payload object for the entire redirect chain. However, it is notable that I/O object is always an issue, so my thought here is to use the seek operation on the I/O object to allow chunk writing on redirect requests.

Yet, for non-seekable I/O objects, some possible solution are:

• sending expect 100 first
• local buffering
• raise error

I think more discussion might be needed for non-seekable objects, so I just raise error in this PR first.

Another thing I think worth discussion is that I removed the close() operation on the I/O object in this PR due to the following reasons:

• StringIOPayload do not close its I/O value in the original code,
• Closing of the I/O value will make the payload un-reusable, even if it is seekable
• We are not the one to create the I/O value, so maybe we should leave for user to close it.
• standard I/O object will be closed upon destructure, so it won't affect the user interface

But I do think more discussions might be needed here.

Are there changes in behavior for the user?

No.

Is it a substantial burden for the maintainers to support this?

Yes.

Related issue number

Fixes #5577
Fixes #5530

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_or_pr_num>.<type>.rst (e.g. 588.bugfix.rst)

  • if you don't have an issue number, change it to the pull request
    number after creating the PR

    • .bugfix: A bug fix for something the maintainers deemed an
      improper undesired behavior that got corrected to match
      pre-agreed expectations.
    • .feature: A new behavior, public APIs. That sort of stuff.
    • .deprecation: A declaration of future API removals and breaking
      changes in behavior.
    • .breaking: When something public is removed in a breaking way.
      Could be deprecated in an earlier release.
    • .doc: Notable updates to the documentation structure or build
      process.
    • .packaging: Notes for downstreams about unobvious side effects
      and tooling. Changes in the test invocation considerations and
      runtime assumptions.
    • .contrib: Stuff that affects the contributor experience. e.g.
      Running tests, building the docs, setting up the development
      environment.
    • .misc: Changes that are hard to assign to any of the above
      categories.

  • Make sure to use full sentences with correct case and punctuation,
    for example:

    Fixed issue with non-ascii contents in doctest text files
    -- by :user:`contributor-gh-handle`.

    Use the past tense or the present tense a non-imperative mood,
    referring to what's changed compared to the last released version
    of this project.

[codecov]

Codecov Report

Attention: Patch coverage is 93.85246% with 15 lines in your changes missing coverage. Please review.

Project coverage is 98.28%. Comparing base (88f3834) to head (fb2d3b8).

Files with missing lines	Patch %	Lines
aiohttp/payload.py	72.72%	5 Missing and 7 partials ⚠️
aiohttp/formdata.py	33.33%	1 Missing and 1 partial ⚠️
tests/test_formdata.py	98.83%	1 Missing ⚠️

Additional details and impacted files

@@            Coverage Diff             @@
##           master    #9201      +/-   ##
==========================================
- Coverage   98.31%   98.28%   -0.04%     
==========================================
  Files         107      107              
  Lines       34508    34709     +201     
  Branches     4100     4131      +31     
==========================================
+ Hits        33928    34114     +186     
- Misses        410      417       +7     
- Partials      170      178       +8     

Flag	Coverage Δ
CI-GHA	98.18% <93.85%> (-0.04%)	⬇️
OS-Linux	97.84% <93.85%> (-0.04%)	⬇️
OS-Windows	96.27% <93.82%> (-0.03%)	⬇️
OS-macOS	97.52% <93.85%> (-0.04%)	⬇️
Py-3.10.11	97.62% <93.85%> (-0.03%)	⬇️
Py-3.10.15	97.55% <93.85%> (-0.03%)	⬇️
Py-3.11.10	97.44% <93.85%> (-0.03%)	⬇️
Py-3.11.9	97.51% <93.85%> (-0.03%)	⬇️
Py-3.12.6	97.90% <93.85%> (-0.04%)	⬇️
Py-3.9.13	97.51% <93.85%> (-0.03%)	⬇️
Py-3.9.20	97.45% <93.85%> (-0.03%)	⬇️
Py-pypy7.3.16	97.07% <93.85%> (-0.03%)	⬇️
VM-macos	97.52% <93.85%> (-0.04%)	⬇️
VM-ubuntu	97.84% <93.85%> (-0.04%)	⬇️
VM-windows	96.27% <93.82%> (-0.03%)	⬇️

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.

[Dreamsorcerer]

This class doesn't appear to be an IOBase, so I'm wondering why it reaches this code. Does it match one of the payload subclasses?

[Dreamsorcerer]

This doesn't appear to save much, one call to .clear().

Suggested change

	if not self._fields:
	return self._writer

[Dreamsorcerer]

At first glance, it looks like some reasonable changes for an awkward situation.