Add specific exceptions for authentication issues

[PLPeeters]

What do these changes do?

They add more specific exceptions for authentication issues to avoid getting a blanket UnicodeEncodeError when authentication credentials cannot be encoded.

Are there changes in behavior for the user?

Yes, but for the better as they will get clearer exceptions. Instead of getting a UnicodeEncodeError in such cases, users will be met with one of the following:

• an InvalidAuthClientError if it's the authentication passed via the auth parameter that cannot be encoded
• an InvalidUrlAuthClientError (subclass of InvalidURL) if it's the authentication that is present in the input URL that cannot be encoded
• an InvalidRedirectUrlAuthClientError (subclass of InvalidUrlRedirectClientError) if it's the authentication that is present in a redirect URL that cannot be encoded

I initially was going to go with a single exception, but I believe differentiating them makes sense, as:

• the first one is due to user error
• the second one can be due to user error or input error (in the context of a crawler crawling arbitrary URLs for instance)
• the third one is due to an issue with the website being accessed

Each of these could warrant a different response from the user depending on their need, but at the same time the ones for which the user is potentially not responsible can still be caught by a blanket except InvalidURL block.

For a bit more context, in my implementation I currently would need to catch UnicodeEncodeError on a block that does way more than just do the GET call via aiohttp, and it could very well be that at some point unrelated code in this block raises a UnicodeEncodeError, which I would need to know about. There are of course ways around that, but having a more specific exception is just cleaner overall.

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

No.

Related issue number

N/A

Checklist

• I think the code is well written
• Unit tests for the changes exist
• Documentation reflects the changes => waiting for a go-ahead first since this is not linked to an open issue
• 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 => waiting for a go-ahead first since this is not linked to an open issue

  • 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.

[codspeed-hq]

CodSpeed Performance Report

Merging #10633 will not alter performance

_{Comparing PLPeeters:feature/invalid-auth-exceptions (cdaeb38) with master (c8e14b1)}

Summary

✅ 47 untouched benchmarks