gh-79033: Try to fix asyncio.Server.wait_closed() again #111336
Merged
Conversation
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
I identified the condition that `wait_closed()` is intended to wait for: the server is closed *and* there are no more active connections. When this condition first becomes true, `_wakeup()` is called (either from `close()` or from `_detach()`) and it sets `_waiters` to `None`. So we just check for `self._waiters is None`; if it's not `None`, we know we have to wait, and do so. A problem was that the new test introduced in 3.12 explicitly tested that `wait_closed()` returns immediately when the server is *not* closed but there are currently no active connections. This was a mistake (probably a misunderstanding of the intended semantics). I've fixed the test, and added a separate test that checks exactly for this scenario. I also fixed an oddity where in `_wakeup()` the result of the waiter was set to the waiter itself. This result is not used anywhere and I changed this to `None`, to avoid a GC cycle.
gvanrossum
requested review from
1st1,
asvetlov,
kumaraditya303 and
willingc
as code owners
|
Maybe @graingert has some time to review? (I'll trade you -- I'm reviewing #110728 right now.) |
Dreamsorcerer
approved these changes
Oct 26, 2023
willingc
approved these changes
Oct 28, 2023
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Thanks @gvanrossum for the additional comments and clarification. I'm making one small docstring clarification and then will merge.
|
Thanks @gvanrossum for the PR, and @willingc for merging it 🌮🎉.. I'm working now to backport this PR to: 3.12. |
miss-islington
pushed a commit
to miss-islington/cpython
that referenced
this pull request
Oct 28, 2023
…GH-111336) * Try to fix asyncio.Server.wait_closed() again I identified the condition that `wait_closed()` is intended to wait for: the server is closed *and* there are no more active connections. When this condition first becomes true, `_wakeup()` is called (either from `close()` or from `_detach()`) and it sets `_waiters` to `None`. So we just check for `self._waiters is None`; if it's not `None`, we know we have to wait, and do so. A problem was that the new test introduced in 3.12 explicitly tested that `wait_closed()` returns immediately when the server is *not* closed but there are currently no active connections. This was a mistake (probably a misunderstanding of the intended semantics). I've fixed the test, and added a separate test that checks exactly for this scenario. I also fixed an oddity where in `_wakeup()` the result of the waiter was set to the waiter itself. This result is not used anywhere and I changed this to `None`, to avoid a GC cycle. * Update Lib/asyncio/base_events.py --------- (cherry picked from commit 2655369) Co-authored-by: Guido van Rossum <guido@python.org> Co-authored-by: Carol Willing <carolcode@willingconsulting.com>
|
GH-111424 is a backport of this pull request to the 3.12 branch. |
willingc
added a commit
that referenced
this pull request
Oct 28, 2023
…1336) (#111424) gh-79033: Try to fix asyncio.Server.wait_closed() again (GH-111336) * Try to fix asyncio.Server.wait_closed() again I identified the condition that `wait_closed()` is intended to wait for: the server is closed *and* there are no more active connections. When this condition first becomes true, `_wakeup()` is called (either from `close()` or from `_detach()`) and it sets `_waiters` to `None`. So we just check for `self._waiters is None`; if it's not `None`, we know we have to wait, and do so. A problem was that the new test introduced in 3.12 explicitly tested that `wait_closed()` returns immediately when the server is *not* closed but there are currently no active connections. This was a mistake (probably a misunderstanding of the intended semantics). I've fixed the test, and added a separate test that checks exactly for this scenario. I also fixed an oddity where in `_wakeup()` the result of the waiter was set to the waiter itself. This result is not used anywhere and I changed this to `None`, to avoid a GC cycle. * Update Lib/asyncio/base_events.py --------- (cherry picked from commit 2655369) Co-authored-by: Guido van Rossum <guido@python.org> Co-authored-by: Carol Willing <carolcode@willingconsulting.com>
iritkatriel
pushed a commit
to iritkatriel/cpython
that referenced
this pull request
Oct 29, 2023
…GH-111336) * Try to fix asyncio.Server.wait_closed() again I identified the condition that `wait_closed()` is intended to wait for: the server is closed *and* there are no more active connections. When this condition first becomes true, `_wakeup()` is called (either from `close()` or from `_detach()`) and it sets `_waiters` to `None`. So we just check for `self._waiters is None`; if it's not `None`, we know we have to wait, and do so. A problem was that the new test introduced in 3.12 explicitly tested that `wait_closed()` returns immediately when the server is *not* closed but there are currently no active connections. This was a mistake (probably a misunderstanding of the intended semantics). I've fixed the test, and added a separate test that checks exactly for this scenario. I also fixed an oddity where in `_wakeup()` the result of the waiter was set to the waiter itself. This result is not used anywhere and I changed this to `None`, to avoid a GC cycle. * Update Lib/asyncio/base_events.py --------- Co-authored-by: Carol Willing <carolcode@willingconsulting.com>
aisk
pushed a commit
to aisk/cpython
that referenced
this pull request
Feb 11, 2024
…GH-111336) * Try to fix asyncio.Server.wait_closed() again I identified the condition that `wait_closed()` is intended to wait for: the server is closed *and* there are no more active connections. When this condition first becomes true, `_wakeup()` is called (either from `close()` or from `_detach()`) and it sets `_waiters` to `None`. So we just check for `self._waiters is None`; if it's not `None`, we know we have to wait, and do so. A problem was that the new test introduced in 3.12 explicitly tested that `wait_closed()` returns immediately when the server is *not* closed but there are currently no active connections. This was a mistake (probably a misunderstanding of the intended semantics). I've fixed the test, and added a separate test that checks exactly for this scenario. I also fixed an oddity where in `_wakeup()` the result of the waiter was set to the waiter itself. This result is not used anywhere and I changed this to `None`, to avoid a GC cycle. * Update Lib/asyncio/base_events.py --------- Co-authored-by: Carol Willing <carolcode@willingconsulting.com>
Glyphack
pushed a commit
to Glyphack/cpython
that referenced
this pull request
Sep 2, 2024
…GH-111336) * Try to fix asyncio.Server.wait_closed() again I identified the condition that `wait_closed()` is intended to wait for: the server is closed *and* there are no more active connections. When this condition first becomes true, `_wakeup()` is called (either from `close()` or from `_detach()`) and it sets `_waiters` to `None`. So we just check for `self._waiters is None`; if it's not `None`, we know we have to wait, and do so. A problem was that the new test introduced in 3.12 explicitly tested that `wait_closed()` returns immediately when the server is *not* closed but there are currently no active connections. This was a mistake (probably a misunderstanding of the intended semantics). I've fixed the test, and added a separate test that checks exactly for this scenario. I also fixed an oddity where in `_wakeup()` the result of the waiter was set to the waiter itself. This result is not used anywhere and I changed this to `None`, to avoid a GC cycle. * Update Lib/asyncio/base_events.py --------- Co-authored-by: Carol Willing <carolcode@willingconsulting.com>
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
I identified the condition that
wait_closed()is intended to wait for: the server is closed and there are no more active connections.When this condition first becomes true,
_wakeup()is called (either fromclose()or from_detach()) and it sets_waiterstoNone. So we just check forself._waiters is None; if it's notNone, we know we have to wait, and do so.A problem was that the new test introduced in 3.12 explicitly tested that
wait_closed()returns immediately when the server is not closed but there are currently no active connections. This was a mistake (probably a misunderstanding of the intended semantics). I've fixed the test, and added a separate test that checks exactly for this scenario.I also fixed an oddity where in
_wakeup()the result of the waiter was set to the waiter itself. This result is not used anywhere and I changed this toNone, to avoid a GC cycle.📚 Documentation preview 📚: https://cpython-previews--111336.org.readthedocs.build/