Eric Snow <ericsnowcurren...@gmail.com> added the comment:
On Wed, Jan 15, 2020 at 12:20 AM Kyle Stanley <rep...@bugs.python.org> wrote: > As can be seen from the results above, the interpreter is not even running in > the first place before > it's destroyed, so of course destroy() won't raise an RuntimeError. I think > this proves that > interpreters.destroy() is _not_ where we should be focusing our efforts (at > least for now). Instead, > we should first investigate why it's not even running at this point. Good catch. > I suspect the issue _might_ be a race condition within the "_running()" > context manager that's > preventing the interpreter from being ran, but I'll have to do some further > investigation. Sounds good. > Notably, a rather difficult and hard to explain side effect occurred from > adding the new assertion. > [snip] > But, I have no explanation for this. Yeah, that sounds a bit strange. Keep in mind that there have been other changes in this part of the runtime code, so this might be related. Or I suppose it could be a side effect of calling is_running() (though that definitely should not have side effects). > do you think it might be worth adding in the changes I made to > DestroyTests.test_still_running above? Yeah, it's a good sanity check on the assumptions made by the test. Please do open a PR and request a review from me. ---------- _______________________________________ Python tracker <rep...@bugs.python.org> <https://bugs.python.org/issue37224> _______________________________________ _______________________________________________ Python-bugs-list mailing list Unsubscribe: https://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-bugs-list/archive%40mail-archive.com
