[PR #13457/e54b79cb backport][3.14] Build the websocket reader_c extension without the reader_c.py symlink

[patchback]

This is a backport of PR #13457 as merged into master (e54b79c).

What do these changes do?

Removes the aiohttp/_websocket/reader_c.py symlink; the extension is now compiled directly from reader_py.py using cython --module-name aiohttp._websocket.reader_c. The symlink only existed so Cython would pair the source with reader_c.pxd and emit the right module name, but after #13388 the wheel build materializes it as a regular file in site-packages, which coverage then reports as a new 0% file.

Are there changes in behavior for the user?

No runtime changes; dists no longer contain a stray reader_c.py file, reader_c only exists as the compiled extension.

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

No, it is one less special case; the Makefile rule is the only thing that changed.

Related issue number

Follow up to #13388

Checklist

• I think the code is well written
• Unit tests for the changes exist
  • N/A, build tooling only, covered by the existing websocket test suite with extensions enabled
• Documentation reflects the changes
  • N/A
• If you provide code modification, please add yourself to CONTRIBUTORS.txt
  • N/A, already listed
• Add a new news fragment into the CHANGES/ folder
  • name it <issue_or_pr_num>.<type>.rst (e.g. 588.bugfix.rst)

Drafted with Claude Code; reviewed by bdraco.

[greptile-apps]

Confidence Score: 5/5

The PR appears safe to merge because the generated extension keeps the expected module identity and no supported runtime fallback is broken.

Cython resolves the existing reader_c.pxd through the explicit qualified module name, the build and runtime import names remain aligned, and no-extension installations continue to fall back to reader_py.

_{Reviews (1): Last reviewed commit: "Build the websocket reader_c extension w..." | Re-trigger Greptile}

[codecov]

Codecov Report

✅ All modified and coverable lines are covered by tests.
✅ Project coverage is 96.17%. Comparing base (eb52616) to head (4ac6a77).
✅ All tests successful. No failed tests found.

Additional details and impacted files

@@            Coverage Diff             @@
##             3.14   #13470      +/-   ##
==========================================
+ Coverage   95.63%   96.17%   +0.54%     
==========================================
  Files         159      158       -1     
  Lines       50852    50563     -289     
  Branches     2791     2734      -57     
==========================================
- Hits        48630    48629       -1     
+ Misses       2042     1754     -288     
  Partials      180      180              

Flag	Coverage Δ
CI-GHA	96.18% <0.00%> (+0.55%)	⬆️
OS-Linux	95.96% <0.00%> (+0.54%)	⬆️
OS-Windows	93.69% <0.00%> (+0.54%)	⬆️
OS-macOS	95.16% <0.00%> (+0.53%)	⬆️
Py-3.10	95.37% <0.00%> (+0.54%)	⬆️
Py-3.11	95.63% <0.00%> (+0.55%)	⬆️
Py-3.12	95.70% <0.00%> (+0.54%)	⬆️
Py-3.13	95.70% <0.00%> (+0.54%)	⬆️
Py-3.14	95.80% <0.00%> (+0.55%)	⬆️
Py-3.14t	94.80% <0.00%> (+0.54%)	⬆️
Py-pypy-3.11	94.64% <0.00%> (+0.54%)	⬆️
VM-macos	95.16% <0.00%> (+0.53%)	⬆️
VM-ubuntu	95.96% <0.00%> (+0.54%)	⬆️
VM-windows	93.69% <0.00%> (+0.54%)	⬆️
cython-coverage	78.15% <0.00%> (+<0.01%)	⬆️

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

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

[codspeed-hq]

Merging this PR will not alter performance

✅ 72 untouched benchmarks
⏩ 7 skipped benchmarks¹

---

_{Comparing patchback/backports/3.14/e54b79cbae69e24d5e87469613e97a3d9bec0d4b/pr-13457 (4ac6a77) with 3.14 (eb52616)}

Footnotes

1. 7 benchmarks were skipped, so the baseline results were used instead. If they were deleted from the codebase, click here and archive them to remove them from the performance reports. ↩