[j0sh]

Accept dicts, text, bytes, binary files, and async byte streams with
an optional content type. Send omitted and None payloads as empty bodies.

Add StreamPayload(source=...) for streaming data sources. To accommodate 402
(payment) and other error response codes without consuming the payload,
the client sends an Expect: 100-continue and waits for the 100 before
transmitting the body. This is something that most HTTP servers do by
default already, including golang's. Bounded (non-streaming) inputs do
not wait for the 100.

In the case that there is still an error after payment, streaming input is
buffered for replay during runner failover (optional, but enabled by
default). Seekable files are rewound instead of buffered.

This is API-compatible with existing callers, with a few tweaks:

• None payloads now don't send a body, instead of {}
• stream=True (response streaming) now honors timeout instead of
  using a fixed 10s

Also remove an unused Label field from runner registration.

[j0sh]

From Codex, on the codequality bot:

---

For PR #80, seven findings are false positives and two are minor readability suggestions.

• Seven “statement has no effect” warnings: all flag await statements. Those waits finish cancellation/cleanup, wait for worker I/O, or verify that cancellation raises. I temporarily removed one flagged await: both existing cancellation tests failed, and a task exception went unhandled.
• Two “empty except” warnings: the test server intentionally ignores disconnects during aborted requests and teardown. Adding a short explanation is reasonable, but these aren’t functional defects.
  On your second question: I should own the substantive review and triage. I reviewed the upload, retry, and cancellation behavior earlier, but hadn’t read these GitHub annotations until you supplied the PR. Running tests and lint alone isn’t sufficient; I should evaluate findings against the code and report which deserve action. Here, I’d keep every flagged await and treat the two comment suggestions as optional.

---

I'm disabling the codequality bot to reduce noise - cc @rickstaa

[rickstaa]

@j0sh thanks for the pr will review later.

I'm disabling the codequality bot to reduce noise - cc @rickstaa

Yea no problem please keep co-pilot reviews enabled they are good at spoting actual problems.

[Copilot]

Copilot was unable to review this pull request because the user who requested the review has reached their quota limit.

An organization owner can choose the repository organization as the billing source for reviews requested by members with a paid Copilot license. Learn about Copilot code review billing. Review the Copilot code review billing settings.