Fix duplicate cookie expiration calls in the CookieJar implementation

[bdraco]

What do these changes do?

_do_expiration was already being called filter_cookies because it iterates self which calls __iter__ which also calls _do_expiration

Calling len() on the cookie jar has the side of expiring stale cookies since it also called __iter__

Are there changes in behavior for the user?

Calling len() on the cookie jar no longer has the side effect of expiring stale cookies.

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 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."

[bdraco]

[bdraco]

looks like there is another call

[bdraco]

Only called once now per filter_cookies

[bdraco]

It also looks like every time a request is made without a hostname it has to reconstruct a netloc to get origin and make an ip address object

[bdraco]

confirmed only happening once per filter_cookies now

[bdraco]

Marking as draft until #7777 merges as it will be much easier to rebase this PR vs that one

[codecov]

Codecov Report

All modified and coverable lines are covered by tests ✅

Comparison is base (54ceb6f) 97.47% compared to head (5139814) 97.47%.
Report is 1 commits behind head on master.

Additional details and impacted files

@@           Coverage Diff           @@
##           master    #7784   +/-   ##
=======================================
  Coverage   97.47%   97.47%           
=======================================
  Files         107      107           
  Lines       32590    32601   +11     
  Branches     3800     3801    +1     
=======================================
+ Hits        31768    31779   +11     
  Misses        618      618           
  Partials      204      204           

Flag	Coverage Δ
CI-GHA	97.39% <100.00%> (+<0.01%)	⬆️
OS-Linux	97.06% <100.00%> (+<0.01%)	⬆️
OS-Windows	95.57% <100.00%> (+<0.01%)	⬆️
OS-macOS	96.88% <100.00%> (+<0.01%)	⬆️
Py-3.10.11	95.50% <100.00%> (+<0.01%)	⬆️
Py-3.10.13	96.87% <100.00%> (+<0.01%)	⬆️
Py-3.11.7	96.55% <100.00%> (+<0.01%)	⬆️
Py-3.12.1	96.68% <100.00%> (+0.02%)	⬆️
Py-3.8.10	95.47% <100.00%> (+<0.01%)	⬆️
Py-3.8.18	96.80% <100.00%> (+<0.01%)	⬆️
Py-3.9.13	95.47% <100.00%> (+<0.01%)	⬆️
Py-3.9.18	96.83% <100.00%> (+<0.01%)	⬆️
Py-pypy7.3.15	96.39% <100.00%> (+<0.01%)	⬆️
VM-macos	96.88% <100.00%> (+<0.01%)	⬆️
VM-ubuntu	97.06% <100.00%> (+<0.01%)	⬆️
VM-windows	95.57% <100.00%> (+<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.

[patchback]

Backport to 3.10: 💔 cherry-picking failed — conflicts found

❌ Failed to cleanly apply e8339e7 on top of patchback/backports/3.10/e8339e7687a6c228076f788237b6dbe95ae711e5/pr-7784

Backporting merged PR #7784 into master

1. Ensure you have a local repo clone of your fork. Unless you cloned it
   from the upstream, this would be your origin remote.
2. Make sure you have an upstream repo added as a remote too. In these
   instructions you'll refer to it by the name upstream. If you don't
   have it, here's how you can add it:

   $ git remote add upstream https://github.com/aio-libs/aiohttp.git

3. Ensure you have the latest copy of upstream and prepare a branch
   that will hold the backported code:

   $ git fetch upstream
   $ git checkout -b patchback/backports/3.10/e8339e7687a6c228076f788237b6dbe95ae711e5/pr-7784 upstream/3.10

4. Now, cherry-pick PR Fix duplicate cookie expiration calls in the CookieJar implementation #7784 contents into that branch:

   $ git cherry-pick -x e8339e7687a6c228076f788237b6dbe95ae711e5

   If it'll yell at you with something like fatal: Commit e8339e7687a6c228076f788237b6dbe95ae711e5 is a merge but no -m option was given., add -m 1 as follows instead:

   $ git cherry-pick -m1 -x e8339e7687a6c228076f788237b6dbe95ae711e5

5. At this point, you'll probably encounter some merge conflicts. You must
   resolve them in to preserve the patch from PR Fix duplicate cookie expiration calls in the CookieJar implementation #7784 as close to the
   original as possible.
6. Push this branch to your fork on GitHub:

   $ git push origin patchback/backports/3.10/e8339e7687a6c228076f788237b6dbe95ae711e5/pr-7784

7. Create a PR, ensure that the CI is green. If it's not — update it so that
   the tests and any other checks pass. This is it!
   Now relax and wait for the maintainers to process your pull request
   when they have some cycles to do reviews. Don't worry — they'll tell you if
   any improvements are necessary when the time comes!

🤖 @patchback
I'm built with octomachinery and
my source is open — https://github.com/sanitizers/patchback-github-app.