Improper validation of the port in URL.with_port

[decorator-factory]

Describe the bug

URL.with_port doesn't fully validate its argument. It is possible to set a boolean port, a negative port, or a port greater than 65535. Additionally, if the provided port is 0, it is treated as None (i.e. removes the port).

Notably, a bool port or a port out of range will cause an error when trying to retrieve the port:

from yarl import URL
url = URL("http://example.com")
true_url = url.with_port(True)
print(true_url.port)  # ValueError here

To Reproduce

1. Install yarl==1.7.2
2. Run the following code:

from yarl import URL
url = URL("http://example.com")
print(url.with_port(True))
print(url.with_port(0))
print(url.with_port(-1))
print(url.with_port(99999))

Expected behavior

1. yarl.URL("http://example.com").with_port(True) raises a TypeError
2. yarl.URL("http://example.com").with_port(0) raises a ValueError
3. yarl.URL("http://example.com").with_port(-1) raises a ValueError
4. yarl.URL("http://example.com").with_port(99999) raises a ValueError

Logs/tracebacks

Output of the code in To Reproduce

http://example.com:True
http://example.com
http://example.com:-1
http://example.com:99999

Python Version

CPython 3.9.8

multidict Version

6.0.2

yarl Version

1.7.2

OS

Manjaro Linux

Additional context

No response

Code of Conduct

• I agree to follow the aio-libs Code of Conduct

[webknjaz]

Thanks! Feel free to send a PR with tests for these cases.

[dereckt]

Hi, I'm looking into this issue. Almost got a PR ready.

[dereckt]

Hi I've created a draft for the PR, though I'm unsure as how to handle the case with the invalid port 0. How should port 0 be handled?

[asvetlov]

Fixed by #793