This issue tracker has been migrated to GitHub, and is currently read-only.
For more information, see the GitHub FAQs in the Python's Developer Guide.

Title: Specifying AbstractEventLoop.run_in_executor as a coroutine conflicts with implementation/intent
Type: behavior Stage:
Components: asyncio Versions: Python 3.7
Status: open Resolution:
Dependencies: Superseder:
Assigned To: Nosy List: asvetlov, chrahunt, yselivanov
Priority: normal Keywords:

Created on 2019-01-21 02:59 by chrahunt, last changed 2022-04-11 14:59 by admin.

Messages (4)
msg334109 - (view) Author: Christopher Hunt (chrahunt) * Date: 2019-01-21 02:59
Currently AbstractEventLoop.run_in_executor is specified as a coroutine, while BaseEventLoop.run_in_executor is actually a non-coroutine that returns a Future object. The behavior of BaseEventLoop.run_in_executor would be significantly different if changed to align with the interface . If run_in_executor is a coroutine then the provided func will not actually be scheduled until the coroutine is awaited, which conflicts with the statement in PEP 3156 that it "is equivalent to `wrap_future(executor.submit(callback, *args))`".

There has already been an attempt in bpo-32327 to convert this function to a coroutine. We should change the interface specified in `AbstractEventLoop` to indicate that `run_in_executor` is not a coroutine, which should help ensure it does not get changed in the future without full consideration of the impacts.
msg340533 - (view) Author: Andrew Svetlov (asvetlov) * (Python committer) Date: 2019-04-19 09:48
I would rather change the implementation by converting it into async function.
It can break some code, sure -- but in a very explicit way (coroutine `run_in_executor is never awaited` error).
Making existing third-party code forward-compatible is trivial: just push `await` before the call.
msg340545 - (view) Author: Christopher Hunt (chrahunt) * Date: 2019-04-19 14:30
My use case is scheduling work against an executor but waiting on the results later (on demand).

If converting `BaseEventLoop.run_in_executor(executor, func, *args)` to a coroutine function, I believe there are two possible approaches (the discussion that started this [here]( only considers [impl.1]):

impl.1) `BaseEventLoop.run_in_executor` still returns a future, but we must await the coroutine object in order to get it (very breaking change), or
impl.2) `BaseEventLoop.run_in_executor` awaits on the result of `func` itself and returns the result directly

In both cases the provided `func` will only be dispatched to `executor` when the coroutine object is scheduled with the event loop.

For [impl.1], from the linked discussion, there is an example of user code required to get the behavior of schedule immediately and return future while still using `BaseEventLoop.run_in_executor`:

    async def run_now(f, *args):
        loop = asyncio.get_event_loop()
        started = asyncio.Event()
        def wrapped_f():
            return f(*args)
        fut = loop.run_in_executor(None, wrapped_f)
        await started.wait()
        return fut

however this wrapper would only be possible to use in an async function and assumes the executor is running in the same process - synchronous functions (e.g. an implementation of Protocol.data_received) would need to use an alternative `my_run_in_executor`:

    def my_run_in_executor(executor, f, *args, loop=asyncio.get_running_loop()):
        return asyncio.wrap_future(executor.submit(f, *args), loop=loop)

either of these would need to be discovered by users and live in their code base.

Having to use `my_run_in_executor` would be most unfortunate, given the purpose of `run_in_executor` per the PEP is to be a shorthand for this exact function.

For [impl.2], we are fine if the use case allows submitting and awaiting the completion of `func` in the same location, and no methods of asyncio.Future (e.g. `add_done_callback`, `cancel`) are used. If not then we still need to either:

soln.1) use `my_run_in_executor`, or
soln.2) wrap the `BaseEventLoop.run_in_executor` coroutine object/asyncio.Future with `asyncio.ensure_future`

[soln.1] is bad for the reason stated above: this is the function we are trying to avoid users having to write.

[soln.2] uses the low-level function `asyncio.ensure_future` because both of the suggested alternatives (per the docs) `asyncio.create_task` and `BaseEventLoop.create_task` throw a `TypeError` when provided an `asyncio.Future` as returned by the current implementation of `BaseEventLoop.run_in_executor`. This will have to be discovered by users and exist in their code base.
msg340574 - (view) Author: Christopher Hunt (chrahunt) * Date: 2019-04-20 14:18
For impl.1:

> (very breaking change)

should be

> (very breaking change, mitigated some by the fact that the implementation will warn about the unawaited future)
Date User Action Args
2022-04-11 14:59:10adminsetgithub: 79973
2019-04-20 14:18:31chrahuntsetmessages: + msg340574
2019-04-19 14:30:13chrahuntsetmessages: + msg340545
2019-04-19 09:48:55asvetlovsetmessages: + msg340533
2019-01-21 02:59:18chrahuntcreate