Andrew Svetlov added the comment:
Let's keep it open if you don't give up the issue entirely.
--
___
Python tracker
<https://bugs.python.org/issue30491>
___
__
Change by Andrew Svetlov :
--
resolution: -> fixed
stage: -> resolved
status: open -> closed
___
Python tracker
<https://bugs.python.org/issue27589>
___
___
Andrew Svetlov added the comment:
Agree
--
resolution: -> duplicate
stage: -> resolved
status: open -> closed
superseder: -> Allow multiple separators in Stream.readuntil
___
Python tracker
<https://bugs.python
Change by Andrew Svetlov :
--
pull_requests: +15655
pull_request: https://github.com/python/cpython/pull/16033
___
Python tracker
<https://bugs.python.org/issue36
Andrew Svetlov added the comment:
New changeset a488879cbaf4b8b52699cadccf73bb4c271bcb29 by Andrew Svetlov in
branch 'master':
bpo-36373: Deprecate explicit loop in task and subprocess API (GH-16033)
https://github.com/python/cpython/commit/a488879cbaf4b8b52699cadccf73bb
Change by Andrew Svetlov :
--
resolution: -> out of date
stage: -> resolved
status: open -> closed
___
Python tracker
<https://bugs.python.or
Change by Andrew Svetlov :
--
resolution: -> fixed
stage: patch review -> resolved
status: open -> closed
___
Python tracker
<https://bugs.python.or
Andrew Svetlov added the comment:
please do
--
___
Python tracker
<https://bugs.python.org/issue37141>
___
___
Python-bugs-list mailing list
Unsubscribe:
Change by Andrew Svetlov :
--
keywords: +patch
pull_requests: +15684
stage: -> patch review
pull_request: https://github.com/python/cpython/pull/16061
___
Python tracker
<https://bugs.python.org/issu
Change by Andrew Svetlov :
--
pull_requests: +15691
pull_request: https://github.com/python/cpython/pull/16070
___
Python tracker
<https://bugs.python.org/issue38
Andrew Svetlov added the comment:
Yes, please close as a duplicate.
--
___
Python tracker
<https://bugs.python.org/issue37455>
___
___
Python-bugs-list mailin
Change by Andrew Svetlov :
--
resolution: -> fixed
stage: patch review -> resolved
status: open -> closed
___
Python tracker
<https://bugs.python.or
New submission from Andrew Svetlov :
Transports are abstract interfaces.
Adding slots allows using slots in transport implementations as well.
If the implementation doesn't use slots -- everything keeps working.
Slots can help with saving a memory footprint a little.
--
compo
Change by Andrew Svetlov :
--
keywords: +patch
pull_requests: +15699
stage: -> patch review
pull_request: https://github.com/python/cpython/pull/16077
___
Python tracker
<https://bugs.python.org/issu
Andrew Svetlov added the comment:
Note, slots for protocols are provided by 3.8 already.
--
___
Python tracker
<https://bugs.python.org/issue38148>
___
___
Pytho
Change by Andrew Svetlov :
--
resolution: -> fixed
stage: patch review -> resolved
status: open -> closed
___
Python tracker
<https://bugs.python.or
Andrew Svetlov added the comment:
You spawn too many subprocesses that finish virtually at the same time.
It leads to wakeup_fd overrun.
Python 3.6 is in security mode, sorry (and the fix is impossible).
Python 3.7 has warn_on_full_buffer=False flag for
https://docs.python.org/3/library
Change by Andrew Svetlov :
--
versions: +Python 3.9 -Python 2.7
___
Python tracker
<https://bugs.python.org/issue12144>
___
___
Python-bugs-list mailin
Andrew Svetlov added the comment:
The issue can be closed, loop.add_reader() / loop.remove_reader() calls
correctly handle closed loop now
--
nosy: +asvetlov
resolution: -> out of date
stage: -> resolved
status: open -> closed
___
Pytho
Andrew Svetlov added the comment:
New changeset 9eb35ab0d71a6bd680e84fa0f828cb634e72b681 by Andrew Svetlov in
branch 'master':
bpo-38148: Add slots to asyncio transports (GH-16077)
https://github.com/python/cpython/commit/9eb35ab0d71a6bd680e84fa0f828cb
Change by Andrew Svetlov :
--
pull_requests: +15714
pull_request: https://github.com/python/cpython/pull/16093
___
Python tracker
<https://bugs.python.org/issue38
Andrew Svetlov added the comment:
New changeset e7b7edf5ebaed14dc68c841a8a98260f1330ef9a by Andrew Svetlov
(Xtreak) in branch '3.7':
[3.7] bpo-12144: Handle cookies with expires attribute in
CookieJar.make_cookies (GH-13921) (GH-16092)
https://github.com/python/cpyt
Change by Andrew Svetlov :
--
resolution: -> fixed
stage: patch review -> resolved
status: open -> closed
___
Python tracker
<https://bugs.python.or
Change by Andrew Svetlov :
--
keywords: +easy, newcomer friendly
___
Python tracker
<https://bugs.python.org/issue37404>
___
___
Python-bugs-list mailin
Andrew Svetlov added the comment:
New changeset 6638c9226066205a646e18da95b33e619d784b0b by Andrew Svetlov in
branch '3.8':
[3.8] bpo-38148: Add slots to asyncio transports (GH-16077) (GH-16093)
https://github.com/python/cpython/commit/6638c9226066205a646e18da95b33e
Change by Andrew Svetlov :
--
resolution: -> fixed
stage: patch review -> resolved
status: open -> closed
___
Python tracker
<https://bugs.python.or
Andrew Svetlov added the comment:
Vlad, the PR is very welcome!
--
___
Python tracker
<https://bugs.python.org/issue34344>
___
___
Python-bugs-list mailin
Andrew Svetlov added the comment:
I believe after implementing AsyncMock we can close the issue
--
nosy: +asvetlov
resolution: -> out of date
stage: -> resolved
status: open -> closed
___
Python tracker
<https://bugs.python.or
Andrew Svetlov added the comment:
I believe with AsyncMock implemented we can close the issue
--
___
Python tracker
<https://bugs.python.org/issue26140>
___
___
Change by Andrew Svetlov :
--
keywords: +patch
pull_requests: +15758
stage: needs patch -> patch review
pull_request: https://github.com/python/cpython/pull/16148
___
Python tracker
<https://bugs.python.org/issu
Andrew Briand added the comment:
It looks like the test suite (in particular test_ast) specifically checks for
the behavior where the col_offset of c in a.b.c.d is 0. This seems strange to
me though, does anyone know if this is intended? If not, I can patch it.
--
nosy
Andrew Svetlov added the comment:
I have a PR for the fix.
Yuri preliminary agrees with the patch but he requested more time for careful
review.
I've added 'release blocker' priority to don't miss this bugfix for the next
release.
--
nosy: +lukasz.langa, ned.de
Andrew Svetlov added the comment:
Thanks Hrvoje!
--
resolution: -> fixed
stage: patch review -> resolved
status: open -> closed
___
Python tracker
<https://bugs.python.or
Andrew Svetlov added the comment:
Thanks. The correct fix is 'do nothing if stream._transport is None'.
We have only two weeks before 3.8rc, thus I'll prepare a fix myself for the
sake of fast merging.
--
assignee: -> asvetlov
Andrew Svetlov added the comment:
This fix cannot land on 3.6, the version is in security-fix only mode.
--
versions: -Python 3.6
___
Python tracker
<https://bugs.python.org/issue38
Andrew Svetlov added the comment:
Raymond, sorry if I was so quick in applying.
The patch is very trivial and obvious.
I am pretty sure that Yuri and Victor approve it.
The PR doesn't fix a mistake, the code is still valid.
But we all changed our mind what is the loop role, should
Andrew Svetlov added the comment:
Thanks, Ned.
I love to include this in 3.7.5.
I've pinged Yuri offline with ask for review
--
___
Python tracker
<https://bugs.python.org/is
Change by Andrew Svetlov :
--
resolution: -> fixed
stage: patch review -> resolved
status: open -> closed
___
Python tracker
<https://bugs.python.or
Change by Andrew Svetlov :
--
resolution: -> fixed
stage: patch review -> resolved
status: open -> closed
___
Python tracker
<https://bugs.python.or
Andrew Svetlov added the comment:
Thnks, Kyle!
--
resolution: -> fixed
stage: patch review -> resolved
status: open -> closed
___
Python tracker
<https://bugs.python.or
Andrew Svetlov added the comment:
New changeset 9fdc64cf1266b6d5bf0503847b5c38e5edc53a14 by Andrew Svetlov (Kyle
Stanley) in branch 'master':
bpo-34037: Fix test_asyncio failure and add loop.shutdown_default_executor()
(GH-15735)
https://github.com/python/cpyt
Andrew Svetlov added the comment:
I think we need better name than just `_is_coroutine`.
All async function properties as dunder named, the new *official* name should
follow this convention as well
--
___
Python tracker
<https://bugs.python.
Andrew Svetlov added the comment:
I think `func.__awaitable__ = True` can serve all possible situations.
We need it for async mocks (now the library use flawless `_is_coroutine`
approach.
`__awaitable__` can also cover cases where a regular function returns awaitable
object or there is a
Andrew Svetlov added the comment:
There is an alternative proposal: let's deprecate and eventually remove streams
API entirely (for sockets, pipes, and subprocesses).
By this, we will never have a chance to conflict with trio.
Another option is removing asyncio at all (again to
Change by Andrew Svetlov :
--
nosy: +rhettinger
___
Python tracker
<https://bugs.python.org/issue38242>
___
___
Python-bugs-list mailing list
Unsubscribe:
Andrew Svetlov added the comment:
I would say that we can reimplement the Stream class on top of new composable
streams in the future.
I'd love to do it right now but these streams don't exist yet.
I totally support the idea of new streams design, it looks very attra
Change by Andrew Svetlov :
--
nosy: +rhettinger
___
Python tracker
<https://bugs.python.org/issue38242>
___
___
Python-bugs-list mailing list
Unsubscribe:
Andrew Svetlov added the comment:
Awesome!
--
___
Python tracker
<https://bugs.python.org/issue38242>
___
___
Python-bugs-list mailing list
Unsubscribe:
Change by Andrew Svetlov :
--
resolution: -> fixed
stage: patch review -> resolved
status: open -> closed
___
Python tracker
<https://bugs.python.or
Andrew Svetlov added the comment:
I think if we want to support SOCK_SEQPACKET by asyncio we should do it
explicitly.
In the other case, we can open a can of worms: we cannot guarantee that all
existing protocols are supported by asyncio seamlessly.
Anyway, this is a new feature request
Andrew Svetlov added the comment:
We can implement these using the following procedure:
1. Use only one socket type per pull request
2. Add support for, e.g. SOCK_SEQPACKET to asyncio code
3. Add test(s) that checks that SOCK_SEQPACKET works fine
(./Lib/test/test_asyncio folder, perhaps
Andrew Svetlov added the comment:
If you have no time for contribution -- that's fine, CPython is the Open Source
project driven by volunteers.
The only caveat is that the issue may wait for years before we find a champion
to pick it up.
For example, this particular problem is on the
Andrew Svetlov added the comment:
I'd like to see how thread pools integrate with (not existing yet bug planned
for 3.9) task groups before pushing forward the proposed approach.
--
___
Python tracker
<https://bugs.python.org/is
Change by Andrew Svetlov :
--
keywords: +patch
pull_requests: +16056
stage: -> patch review
pull_request: https://github.com/python/cpython/pull/16472
___
Python tracker
<https://bugs.python.org/issu
New submission from Andrew Svetlov :
Sockets support it, there is no reason for missing the method in unix pipe.
--
components: asyncio
messages: 353494
nosy: asvetlov, yselivanov
priority: normal
severity: normal
status: open
title: Implement unix read_pipe.is_reading() method
Andrew Svetlov added the comment:
The issue is easy, basically we need the following code plus a test
def is_reading(self):
return not self._paused and not self._closing
--
keywords: +newcomer friendly
type: -> enhancement
___
Pyt
Andrew Svetlov added the comment:
New changeset 58498bc7178608b1ab031994ca09c43889ce3e76 by Andrew Svetlov in
branch 'master':
bpo-38019: correctly handle pause/resume reading of closed asyncio unix pipe
(GH-16472)
https://github.com/python/cpyt
Andrew Svetlov added the comment:
Nothing special.
There is UnixReadPipeTransportTests test cases inside
Lib/test/test_asyncio/test_unix_events.py
This class has a bunch of tests for pause_reading() / resume_reading().
Test(s) for is_reading() can be built in the same way
Change by Andrew Svetlov :
--
resolution: -> fixed
stage: patch review -> resolved
status: open -> closed
___
Python tracker
<https://bugs.python.or
New submission from Andrew Ushakov :
pyw.exe (Python Launcher for Windows Version 3.8.121.1013) opens a console
window at startup. To reproduce, run command below from the console:
D:>pyw -c "import time; time.sleep(10)"
By the way command:
D:>pythomw -c "import time; t
Andrew Svetlov added the comment:
You MUST await a future returned from `loop.run_in_executor()` to avoid the
leak.
Yuri, what should we do with the issue? I see the second similar report in the
last half of the year.
Sure, we can add weakrefs somewhere in futures._chain_future() but I
Andrew Svetlov added the comment:
Victor answered the first :)
--
___
Python tracker
<https://bugs.python.org/issue38430>
___
___
Python-bugs-list mailin
Andrew Svetlov added the comment:
> Can a Task be used instead of a Future in run_in_executor()?
I don't think that the task is required here. The problem is that
run_in_executor is a function that returns asyncio future; that is in turn a
wrapper around concurrent future object
Andrew Svetlov added the comment:
The change is slightly not backward compatible but
1. It's pretty visible. In the worst-case instead of the memory leak people see
a RuntimeWarning
2. We did it already for a part of API, e.g. loop.sock_read() and f
Andrew Svetlov added the comment:
> code that incorrectly imported directly from the submodules will break
That's true. Please note: incorrect code will break. The correct code keeps
working.
I'm personally not sure if we need to reflect *private* API change in Release
No
Change by Andrew Svetlov :
--
versions: +Python 3.9
___
Python tracker
<https://bugs.python.org/issue38563>
___
___
Python-bugs-list mailing list
Unsubscribe:
Andrew Svetlov added the comment:
Pull Request is welcome!
--
___
Python tracker
<https://bugs.python.org/issue38563>
___
___
Python-bugs-list mailing list
Unsub
Andrew Svetlov added the comment:
ThreadedChildWatcher starts a thread per process but has O(1) complexity.
MultiLoopChildWatcher doesn't spawn threads, it can be used safely with asyncio
loops spawn in multiple threads. The complexity is O(N) plus no other code
should contest for SIG
Andrew Svetlov added the comment:
My non-LTS Ubuntu also has 5.3 kernel but I'm talking about the oldest
supported RHEL/CentOS.
That's why pidfd_open() cannot be a single implementation. It's so new; my
local man-pages system has not a record about the API yet (but the web ha
Andrew Svetlov added the comment:
I think we can add `DeprecationWarning` for 3.9.
Since it is a) just a warning b) already marked as deprecated in docs -- the
harm is minimal.
Honestly, we just missed the issue when were prepared for 3.8
New submission from Andrew Svetlov :
Consider the following code:
import asyncio
q = asyncio.Queue()
async def main():
await asyncio.gather(q.put(1), q.get(1))
asyncio.run(main())
This code just hangs since run() creates a loop but queue is bound with another
(default) event loop
Andrew Svetlov added the comment:
> If we add the deprecation warning just for 3.9, would the removal release
> also be pushed forward?
Yes, deprecating in 3.9 with removal in 3.11 is fine.
Regarding 3.8 release notes update -- not sure if it is needed flr docs-only
change.
Andrew Svetlov added the comment:
Please do.
--
___
Python tracker
<https://bugs.python.org/issue38314>
___
___
Python-bugs-list mailing list
Unsubscribe:
Andrew Svetlov added the comment:
lgtm
--
___
Python tracker
<https://bugs.python.org/issue34790>
___
___
Python-bugs-list mailing list
Unsubscribe:
Andrew Svetlov added the comment:
At least it is my learned lesson from aiohttp development.
--
___
Python tracker
<https://bugs.python.org/issue38599>
___
___
Andrew Svetlov added the comment:
I have a different feeling: we should start raising deprecation for
asyncio.Queue() if it is created without running event loop.
It required `get_event_loop()` and `loop.is_running()` checks.
Later the pair can be replaced with `get_running_loop()`.
I
Andrew Svetlov added the comment:
This print comes from asyncio debug mode when async function is blocked by time
longer than 0.1 sec (see loop.slow_callback_duration at
loop.slow_callback_duration).
Usually, it is a sign of a problem in user code, e.g. something should be
pushed into
Andrew Svetlov added the comment:
I think it should be closed; Yuri thinks that current streams API is frozen for
the sake of shiny brand new streams (don't exist yet).
--
resolution: -> wont fix
status: open -> closed
___
Python trac
Andrew Svetlov added the comment:
I'm pretty happy with asyncio.run() functionalit.
I used run() for the bug demonstration, but the example can be rewritten easily
without this function.
The problem is not in run() but in an object lifecycle. Implicit loop creation
plus module-
Change by Andrew Svetlov :
--
components: +asyncio
nosy: +yselivanov
___
Python tracker
<https://bugs.python.org/issue38608>
___
___
Python-bugs-list mailin
Andrew Svetlov added the comment:
Well, if the reported line is invalid it should be fixed
--
___
Python tracker
<https://bugs.python.org/issue38608>
___
___
Andrew Svetlov added the comment:
`run` should be awaitable method, see #38430
--
___
Python tracker
<https://bugs.python.org/issue32309>
___
___
Python-bug
Andrew Svetlov added the comment:
Paul's version looks better.
Two notes:
1. get_running_loop() should be used instead of get_event_loop()
2. There is no `await executer.shutdown()` API, the method is synchronous.
--
___
Python tracker
&
Andrew Svetlov added the comment:
What patch are you talking about?
For me, patch means something special; e.g. working fork of CPython where the
proposed idea is implemented.
I read await coro()[key] as
1. Function named coro() returns a dict-like object
2. An element under key is selected
Andrew Svetlov added the comment:
I thought about returning a special subclass.
Future has too rich API: get_loop(), done(), result() etc.
What's about returning the proxy object with future instance embedded; the
object raises DeprecationWarning for everythin except __repr__, __del_
Andrew Svetlov added the comment:
The API exists, people use it and get the memory leak.
We should either remove the API (not realistic dream at least for many years)
or fix it. There is no choice actually.
--
___
Python tracker
<ht
Andrew Svetlov added the comment:
IOCTL_AFD_POLL looks interesting.
I wonder if it is 100% reliable; we can miss some edge case easily.
--
___
Python tracker
<https://bugs.python.org/issue37
Andrew Svetlov added the comment:
For each type, we need at least a test that creates a socket pair and
successfully transfers data through the wire.
I don't know what additional things are required. For example, on reading about
SOCK_SEQ_PACKET I've found that recvmsg()
Andrew Svetlov added the comment:
How to get the message boundary without recvmsg()? Sorry, I'm not familiar with
seqpacket.
--
___
Python tracker
<https://bugs.python.org/is
Andrew Svetlov added the comment:
Another question: does SSL/TLS make sense for seqpacket?
--
___
Python tracker
<https://bugs.python.org/issue38285>
___
___
Andrew Svetlov added the comment:
At first, would be nice to figure out what "invalid line reported" does mean.
What text is reported and what is expected?
--
___
Python tracker
<https://bugs.python.o
Andrew Svetlov added the comment:
Can recv() get two messages at once?
What is the behavior if the buffer size passed into recv() is smaller than the
message length?
--
___
Python tracker
<https://bugs.python.org/issue38
Andrew Svetlov added the comment:
Awesome!
I think the patch can be splitted in os.pidfd_open() and asyncio part itself.
os modification is clear.
asyncio part looks correct after the brief view.
My the main question is: how to detect if the new watcher can be used or
asyncio should
Andrew Svetlov added the comment:
Nathaniel, you may be interested in the pidfd_open(), at least in adding the
function to os module.
--
nosy: +njs
___
Python tracker
<https://bugs.python.org/issue38
Andrew Svetlov added the comment:
My point is: without a deep understanding we cannot "just enable" a new
protocol.
The evidence that it works in some limited scenarios is not enough for opening
the can of worms.
It is true for seqpacket, and especially true for other even not
Andrew Svetlov added the comment:
Thanks for the clarification.
I forgot about this thing; the output can be improved sure.
As a workaround you can use the following hack::
import asyncio.task
asyncio.task.Task = asyncio.task._PyTask
IIRC the pure python version prints a coroutine name at
Andrew Svetlov added the comment:
I've assigned myself to never forget about the issue; if somebody wants to fix
_CTask and TaskWakeupMethWrapper representation -- you are welcome
--
assignee: -> asvetlov
___
Python tracker
Andrew Svetlov added the comment:
StreamReaderProtocol is tightly coupled with builtin asyncio transports.
Even worse, it is an internal class actually.
If you want a code to operate with custom transports -- perhaps you need to
reimplement streams for them as well.
--
resolution
Andrew Svetlov added the comment:
Slower by percents, not in the factor of times.
I guess for tests it is satisfactory.
--
___
Python tracker
<https://bugs.python.org/issue38
New submission from Andrew Dailey :
Hello,
I think I might've stumbled onto an oversight with how an SSLSocket handles
overwriting its SSLContext within an sni_callback. If both "_msg_callback" and
"sni_callback" are defined on an SSLContext object and the sni_callb
601 - 700 of 3160 matches
Mail list logo
