Message377629
@msg358296:
> IMO, it seems rather counter-intuitive to have to specify `concurrent.futures.TimeoutError` when using a timeout for the future returned by `run_coroutine_threadsafe()`.
I think that's expected, given that the function returns a `concurrent.futures.Future` object. The `Future.result()` method behaves the same regardless of the executor.
@avsetlov:
> futures._chain_future() should convert exceptions. Seems _convert_future_exc() does this work already but maybe it fails somehow. We need to investigate more.
The `_convert_future_exc()` only converts `concurrent.futures` exceptions to `asyncio` exceptions, not the reverse. I'm not sure if this is intentional or not.
With the current behavior there are two types of timeout errors that can occur in the example snippet:
* If the coroutine itself throws an `asyncio.exceptions.TimeoutError`, this will be propagated as-is to the `concurrent.futures.Future` object and thrown by `future.result()`.
* If the coroutine does not terminate within the timeout supplied to `future.result()`, then the method will throw a `concurrent.futures.TimeoutError` without changing the state of the future or the associated coroutine.
It's only necessary to cancel the future in the second case, as in the first case it's already in a finished state. So the example should catch `concurrent.futures.TimeoutError` rather than `asyncio.TimeoutError`. |
|
Date |
User |
Action |
Args |
2020-09-28 21:15:00 | nickgaya | set | recipients:
+ nickgaya, asvetlov, docs@python, pfctdayelise, yselivanov, aeros, janust |
2020-09-28 21:15:00 | nickgaya | set | messageid: <1601327700.29.0.378857501648.issue39027@roundup.psfhosted.org> |
2020-09-28 21:15:00 | nickgaya | link | issue39027 messages |
2020-09-28 21:15:00 | nickgaya | create | |
|