Title: asyncio.Condition should become awaitable in 3.9
Type: Stage: resolved
Components: asyncio Versions:
Status: closed Resolution: rejected
Dependencies: Superseder:
Assigned To: Nosy List: asvetlov, fried, lukasz.langa, yselivanov
Priority: normal Keywords:

Created on 2018-05-16 18:25 by fried, last changed 2018-05-23 18:32 by lukasz.langa. This issue is now closed.

Messages (3)
msg316848 - (view) Author: Jason Fried (fried) * Date: 2018-05-16 18:25
In 3.9 we can remove the deprecated pattern for accepting __enter__ and __exit__ for locks.  This will free up __await__ for Condition to use for replacing .wait() which is wart from before awaitables. 

My new proposed behavior is

await cond 

which would be equivalent of:

async with cond:
    await cond.wait()
msg317223 - (view) Author: Andrew Svetlov (asvetlov) * (Python committer) Date: 2018-05-21 09:29
No, condition variables don't work this way.
The proper code looks like:

async with cond:
    while not <condition met>:
        await cond.wait()
    <do work when the condition is satisfied>

It cannot be collapsed to just `await cond`.
msg317434 - (view) Author: Łukasz Langa (lukasz.langa) * (Python committer) Date: 2018-05-23 18:32
Andrew is right because a Condition *is* a lock.  The confusing thing about this construct is that the actual logic "condition" that we're waiting for is external.

It can be controlled by another coroutine that will just let us know by calling `cond.notify()` when the condition is met.  On the receiver side it looks like this:

    async with cond:       # in this block you hold the lock
        await cond.wait()  # (this temporarily releases the lock as long as it waits)
        print("Another coroutine called .notify().  I hold the lock now!")

It can also be used like Andrew demonstrated above, where *we* run the logic "condition" check ourselves and that check *also* requires a lock to be correct:

    async with cond:                              # in this block you hold the lock
        while not condition_check_with_lock():    # <- this is the actual "condition" check
            await cond.wait()                     # (temporarily releases the lock while it waits)
        print("Check passed and I'm holding the lock now!")

Personally I find the latter example confusing because it doesn't require another coroutine to ever `.notify()` us if the initial `condition_check_with_lock()` returned True, but it *does* require another coroutine to `.notify()` us if that initial check returned False.
Date User Action Args
2018-05-23 18:32:12lukasz.langasetmessages: + msg317434
2018-05-21 09:29:32asvetlovsetstatus: open -> closed
resolution: rejected
messages: + msg317223

stage: resolved
2018-05-16 18:25:47friedcreate