Yury Selivanov added the comment:
This was fixed as part of https://bugs.python.org/issue32331
--
resolution: -> out of date
stage: patch review -> resolved
status: open -> closed
___
Python tracker
<https://bugs.python.or
Yury Selivanov added the comment:
Should we backport this to 3.6? This is a security issue.
--
___
Python tracker
<https://bugs.python.org/issue29970>
___
___
Yury Selivanov added the comment:
I'd be more comfortable with the idea of exposing the buffer when we have
BufferedProtocol. Let's wait on this one.
--
___
Python tracker
<https://bugs.python.o
Yury Selivanov added the comment:
OK.
--
___
Python tracker
<https://bugs.python.org/issue31491>
___
___
Python-bugs-list mailing list
Unsubscribe:
Yury Selivanov added the comment:
I agree, let's keep as_completed() simple for now. Handling generators+async
correctly is hard, so we definitely don't have time for this in 3.7.
--
versions: +Python 3.8 -Python 3.7
___
Python track
Yury Selivanov added the comment:
We've discussed this before, please go ahead.
--
type: -> enhancement
___
Python tracker
<https://bugs.python.org
Yury Selivanov added the comment:
> The fix introduces a new parameter in public API.
Maybe we can get away with this if we do not document it in 3.6 and add a
comment to the source code that using this new parameter will make the code
incompatible with earlier 3.6.x versi
Yury Selivanov added the comment:
Big -1 from me.
If proactor is public, alternative event loop implementations like uvloop will
have to implement its full API, which actually puts restrictions on us
refactoring asyncio itself.
If there's some missing functionality we should think
Change by Yury Selivanov :
--
versions: +Python 3.8 -Python 2.7, Python 3.3, Python 3.4, Python 3.5, Python
3.6, Python 3.7
___
Python tracker
<https://bugs.python.org/issue29
Yury Selivanov added the comment:
Closing this one.
Quoting my other comment from this issue:
> Well, I don't think we can do something about it. Just re-pack your arguments
> from WeakSet to a regular set.
--
resolution: -> not a bug
stage: -> resolved
statu
Yury Selivanov added the comment:
Thanks, I'll take a look.
--
___
Python tracker
<https://bugs.python.org/issue28942>
___
___
Python-bugs-list mailing list
Yury Selivanov added the comment:
I thought the improvements were way bigger than 200nsec, no?
--
___
Python tracker
<https://bugs.python.org/issue32221>
___
___
Yury Selivanov added the comment:
Agree. It's also challenging to design the API that binds to multiple hosts
*and* ports -- a crossproduct of some sorts.
> Multiple server objects never was a problem.
Right.
Let's close this.
--
resolution: -> rejected
status
Yury Selivanov added the comment:
There's no point in exporting the Server class as "asyncio.Server". It'd
created and managed by the event loop, and there's no point to instantiate it
in user code.
We can add an abstract base class AbstractServer though, simil
Yury Selivanov added the comment:
> `remove_signal_handler()` should do nothing if `sys.is_finalizing()` is true.
Probably a good idea.
See also https://github.com/python/asyncio/pull/456.
--
___
Python tracker
<https://bugs.python.org/issu
Yury Selivanov added the comment:
Looks like it's working now:
import asyncio
async def foo():
return 32
async def bar():
print(f'{await foo()}')
asyncio.run(bar())
Prints:
32
--
resolution: -> not a bug
stage: ->
Yury Selivanov added the comment:
Server.sockets property will be a public API and defined in the AbstractServer,
so you can start using them. Just don't try to call socket.send() or
socket.accept() as that will break things.
--
___
Python tr
Yury Selivanov added the comment:
The PR looks good, but I don't have the capacity right now to merge it. Ill
need some time for research to double check if it's ok to drop scope id. Will
try to find it in the next few days.
--
___
Pyth
Yury Selivanov added the comment:
> I'm really not sure there's ANY call other than getsockaddr() that really
> makes sense here, though, so perhaps it would be better to evolve the API in
> AbstractServer into returning a list of sockaddr tuples rather than sockets.
Yury Selivanov added the comment:
> _OR_ adding AbstractServer to the documentation and changing existing
> references to asyncio.Server to point at asyncio.AbstractServer instead, as
> that symbol is already exported but is not currently documented.
I completely missed the fac
Yury Selivanov added the comment:
> It did mean duplicating a handful of lines of code from asyncio to iterate
> over the getaddrinfo() results (creating one asyncio.Server per sockaddr
> instead of letting asyncio create a single asyncio.Server with multiple
> listening socket
Change by Yury Selivanov :
--
nosy: +asvetlov
___
Python tracker
<https://bugs.python.org/issue32395>
___
___
Python-bugs-list mailing list
Unsubscribe:
Change by Yury Selivanov :
--
pull_requests: +4877
___
Python tracker
<https://bugs.python.org/issue32357>
___
___
Python-bugs-list mailing list
Unsubscribe:
New submission from Yury Selivanov :
Currently, asyncio code accesses Future._loop and Task._loop property to
validate the event loop and implement functions like "Task.all_tasks()". So
the "_loop" is a semi-official public API that other Task & Future
implementations
Yury Selivanov added the comment:
New changeset 558aa30f7971e087c4a00b1f49cc2ef3195c01ca by Yury Selivanov in
branch 'master':
bpo-32357: Fix tests in refleak mode (#4989)
https://github.com/python/cpython/commit/558aa30f7971e087c4a00b1f49cc2e
Change by Yury Selivanov :
--
keywords: +patch
pull_requests: +4880
stage: -> patch review
___
Python tracker
<https://bugs.python.org/issue32415>
___
___
Py
Yury Selivanov added the comment:
New changeset ca9b36cd1a384e5ecb56d9df9a59144240353ef0 by Yury Selivanov in
branch 'master':
bpo-32415: Add asyncio.Task.get_loop() and Future.get_loop() (#4992)
https://github.com/python/cpython/commit/ca9b36cd1a384e5ecb56d9df9a5914
Yury Selivanov added the comment:
New changeset 0f47fa2c89a6b9a04969219dfb0c3801c611e3ca by Yury Selivanov
(Andrew Svetlov) in branch 'master':
bpo-32357: Use PySet_GET_SIZE macro in _is_coroutine() from _asynciomodule.c
(#4990)
https://github.com/python/cpyt
Change by Yury Selivanov :
--
resolution: -> fixed
stage: patch review -> resolved
status: open -> closed
___
Python tracker
<https://bugs.python.or
Change by Yury Selivanov :
--
pull_requests: +4884
___
Python tracker
<https://bugs.python.org/issue32415>
___
___
Python-bugs-list mailing list
Unsubscribe:
Yury Selivanov added the comment:
New changeset a8fb07978953d3f55cfce836e3669d8b8e82b4c1 by Yury Selivanov in
branch 'master':
bpo-32415: Add more tests (#4995)
https://github.com/python/cpython/commit/a8fb07978953d3f55cfce836e3669d
Change by Yury Selivanov :
--
pull_requests: +4887
___
Python tracker
<https://bugs.python.org/issue32415>
___
___
Python-bugs-list mailing list
Unsubscribe:
Yury Selivanov added the comment:
New changeset 719ccbca69b21013a783b829de3404b5aa243827 by Yury Selivanov in
branch 'master':
bpo-32415: Fix "error is already set" (#4999)
https://github.com/python/cpython/commit/719ccbca69b21013a783
Yury Selivanov added the comment:
New changeset 0cf16f9ea014b17d398ee3971d4976c698533318 by Yury Selivanov in
branch 'master':
bpo-32363: Disable Task.set_exception() and Task.set_result() (#4923)
https://github.com/python/cpython/commit/0cf16f9ea014b17d398ee3971d4976
Change by Yury Selivanov :
--
resolution: -> fixed
stage: patch review -> resolved
status: open -> closed
___
Python tracker
<https://bugs.python.or
Yury Selivanov added the comment:
> _log_traceback is a private property and asyncio implementation detail, you
> should never touch it.
But still, we shouldn't let Python crash if someone sets it. I'll make a PR to
fix this the way Oren proposed.
Andrew, let's discu
Change by Yury Selivanov :
--
pull_requests: +4898
___
Python tracker
<https://bugs.python.org/issue31721>
___
___
Python-bugs-list mailing list
Unsubscribe:
Change by Yury Selivanov :
--
resolution: wont fix ->
stage: resolved -> patch review
status: closed -> open
___
Python tracker
<https://bugs.python.or
Yury Selivanov added the comment:
New changeset e0aef4f3cd339a405d2a7fbd35a50afa64834f84 by Yury Selivanov in
branch 'master':
bpo-31721: Allow Future._log_traceback to only be set to False (#5009)
https://github.com/python/cpython/commit/e0aef4f3cd339a405d2a7fbd35a50a
Change by Yury Selivanov :
--
resolution: -> fixed
stage: patch review -> resolved
status: open -> closed
___
Python tracker
<https://bugs.python.or
Change by Yury Selivanov :
--
assignee: yselivanov
components: Interpreter Core, Library (Lib)
nosy: gvanrossum, yselivanov
priority: normal
severity: normal
stage: patch review
status: open
title: Implement PEP 567
type: enhancement
versions: Python 3.7
Change by Yury Selivanov :
--
keywords: +patch
pull_requests: +4915
___
Python tracker
<https://bugs.python.org/issue32436>
___
___
Python-bugs-list mailin
Change by Yury Selivanov :
--
pull_requests: +4923
stage: needs patch -> patch review
___
Python tracker
<https://bugs.python.org/issue23749>
___
___
Python-
Yury Selivanov added the comment:
> So, PR is ready. Please review.
I understand, however I still don't have time for it at the moment. If another
core dev wants to take initiative, please by all means do.
I can/will take another look at this after Ja
Yury Selivanov added the comment:
> My use case was outside control of otherwise unconditionally blocking task
> (for tests only). What replacement (if any) would you suggest?
Use Task.cancel() or use a Queue to communicate with the task. Your test code
was working, but ultimate
Yury Selivanov added the comment:
New changeset f111b3dcb414093a4efb9d74b69925e535ddc470 by Yury Selivanov in
branch 'master':
bpo-23749: Implement loop.start_tls() (#5039)
https://github.com/python/cpython/commit/f111b3dcb414093a4efb9d74b69925
Change by Yury Selivanov :
--
resolution: -> fixed
stage: patch review -> resolved
status: open -> closed
___
Python tracker
<https://bugs.python.or
Yury Selivanov added the comment:
> I think the feature is significant enough for a What's New entry.
Sure, Elvis and I will go through all NEWS items when it's time for what's new
;)
--
___
Python tracker
<https://bugs.
Change by Yury Selivanov :
--
keywords: +patch
pull_requests: +4935
stage: -> patch review
___
Python tracker
<https://bugs.python.org/issue32458>
___
___
Py
Yury Selivanov added the comment:
I'm leaving on a two-weeks vacation today. To avoid risking breaking the
workflow, I'll mask this tests on AppVeyor. I'll investigate this when I get
back.
--
assignee: -> yselivanov
components: +asyncio -Library (Lib), Test
Yury Selivanov added the comment:
New changeset 0c36bed1c46d07ef91d3e02e69e974e4f3ecd31a by Yury Selivanov in
branch 'master':
bpo-32458: Temporarily mask start-tls proactor test on Windows (#5054)
https://github.com/python/cpython/commit/0c36bed1c46d07ef91d3e02e69e974
Yury Selivanov added the comment:
Please keep this issue open.
--
___
Python tracker
<https://bugs.python.org/issue32458>
___
___
Python-bugs-list mailin
Yury Selivanov added the comment:
+1
--
___
Python tracker
<https://bugs.python.org/issue32468>
___
___
Python-bugs-list mailing list
Unsubscribe:
Yury Selivanov added the comment:
This is a backwards incompatible change. IMO it's too late to change this.
--
___
Python tracker
<https://bugs.python.org/is
Yury Selivanov added the comment:
While I understand the reasons for the proposed change, I'd still be -1 for it.
Solely on the basis of "we don't know how much this change will break, but it
will surely break something in very subtle ways".
Another problem is that async
Yury Selivanov added the comment:
This isn't a priority now, so let's postpone the discussion on this until 3.7
is released.
--
___
Python tracker
<https://bugs.python.o
Yury Selivanov added the comment:
> Deprecating Event.wait would be incorrect because Event was designed to mimic
> the threading.Event class which has a (blocking) wait() method[1].
This is rather important. I'd like to continue maintaining this similarity.
Adding 'await
Yury Selivanov added the comment:
I like the idea. Let's revisit it after Python 3.7 is released.
--
___
Python tracker
<https://bugs.python.org/is
Change by Yury Selivanov :
--
nosy: -yselivanov
___
Python tracker
<https://bugs.python.org/issue32604>
___
___
Python-bugs-list mailing list
Unsubscribe:
Yury Selivanov added the comment:
The syntax for async lambdas doesn't look nice and I, personally, don't see
that many use cases for them to justify adding new syntax. And this would need
a new PEP.
I suggest to start a discussion on the Python-ideas mailing list if this is
som
Yury Selivanov added the comment:
New changeset 63536bd286097e770909052052a21804a5e09b66 by Yury Selivanov (Elvis
Pranskevichus) in branch 'master':
bpo-32996: The bulk of What's New in Python 3.7 (GH-6978)
https://github.com/python/cpython/commit/63536bd286097e77090905205
Yury Selivanov added the comment:
New changeset 15f3d0cc7660ee62c7a1c0420afaee18c26a2a1f by Yury Selivanov (Elvis
Pranskevichus) in branch '3.7':
[3.7] bpo-32996: The bulk of What's New in Python 3.7 (GH-6978). (GH-6998)
https://github.com/python
Yury Selivanov added the comment:
New changeset b2f5f59ae15564b991f3ca4850e6ad28d9faacbc by Yury Selivanov (Elvis
Pranskevichus) in branch 'master':
bpo-33592: Document the C API in PEP 567 (contextvars) (GH-7033)
https://github.com/python/cpyt
Yury Selivanov added the comment:
This is such a great idea. +1 from me.
--
nosy: +yselivanov
___
Python tracker
<https://bugs.python.org/issue33597>
___
___
Yury Selivanov added the comment:
> I suggest that asyncio should be stricter about this error and that methods
> and functions that operate on the event loop, such as call_soon, call_later,
> create_task, ensure_future, and close, should all call _check_thread() even
> when
New submission from Yury Selivanov :
I don't see it documented that dicts preserve insertion order. 3.7 what's new
points to [1], but that section doesn't have a "version changed" tag.
IMO, [1] should have two version changed tags: one for 3.6, and one for 3.7.
Also
Change by Yury Selivanov :
--
pull_requests: +6703
___
Python tracker
<https://bugs.python.org/issue32436>
___
___
Python-bugs-list mailing list
Unsubscribe:
Yury Selivanov added the comment:
New changeset 28b9178023a445b1da2694774c265cd4b7a244ec by Yury Selivanov in
branch 'master':
bpo-32436: Document PEP 567 changes to asyncio. (GH-7073)
https://github.com/python/cpython/commit/28b9178023a445b1da2694774c265c
Yury Selivanov added the comment:
Echo server is usually a good enough microbenchmark (you can use benchmarks
from uvloop/examples). Repeatedly calling call_soon would also be an
interesting micro-benchmark but less important (unless it shows that call_soon
is 2x slower or something
New submission from Yury Selivanov :
Originally reported in https://github.com/MagicStack/uvloop/issues/143
Future.__init__ shouldn't try to capture the current traceback if the
interpreter is being finalized.
--
messages: 317437
nosy: yselivanov
priority: normal
severity: n
Change by Yury Selivanov :
--
keywords: +patch
pull_requests: +6710
stage: -> patch review
___
Python tracker
<https://bugs.python.org/issue33623>
___
___
Py
Change by Yury Selivanov :
--
components: +asyncio
nosy: +asvetlov
___
Python tracker
<https://bugs.python.org/issue33623>
___
___
Python-bugs-list mailin
Change by Yury Selivanov :
--
type: -> crash
___
Python tracker
<https://bugs.python.org/issue33623>
___
___
Python-bugs-list mailing list
Unsubscrib
Yury Selivanov added the comment:
> Is the problem because traceback_extract_stack is NULL?
It's not NULL, it's just a broken reference at that point.
--
___
Python tracker
<https://bugs.pytho
Yury Selivanov added the comment:
> Then we should find what callable is NULL and fix the place where it is
> called. _PyObject_FastCallDict() should never be called with NULL.
My understanding is that the interpreter is being shutdown and half of the
objects are freed. We're stil
Yury Selivanov added the comment:
Thanks Jan. Thanks a lot for a short script to reproduce this bug.
The actual problem here is that asynchronous generators don't control their
'asend' and 'athrow' coroutines in any way. So if you have two of them
iterating *in
Change by Yury Selivanov :
--
assignee: -> yselivanov
components: +Interpreter Core -asyncio
priority: normal -> high
versions: +Python 3.8
___
Python tracker
<https://bugs.python.org/i
Yury Selivanov added the comment:
Thanks, I'll look into adding ag_running properly.
--
___
Python tracker
<https://bugs.python.org/issue30773>
___
___
Pytho
Yury Selivanov added the comment:
I'm OK to skip it for now. Writing functional tests is super hard because some
buildbots are super slow and unpredictable.
--
___
Python tracker
<https://bugs.python.org/is
Yury Selivanov added the comment:
Not at my computer right now, can do it tomorrow.
--
___
Python tracker
<https://bugs.python.org/issue32458>
___
___
Python-bug
Yury Selivanov added the comment:
Should this issue be closed now?
--
___
Python tracker
<https://bugs.python.org/issue32841>
___
___
Python-bugs-list mailin
Yury Selivanov added the comment:
Closing this one. I don't see us adding Future.then. Feel free to discuss on
the MLs.
--
components: +asyncio -Library (Lib)
nosy: +asvetlov, yselivanov
resolution: -> rejected
stage: patch review -&g
Yury Selivanov added the comment:
Is this issue resolved now, or do we need to work on this?
--
___
Python tracker
<https://bugs.python.org/issue30698>
___
___
Yury Selivanov added the comment:
Closing this issue as I, personally, don't see this happening and there's no
point in keeping it open.
--
resolution: -> rejected
stage: -> resolved
status: open -> closed
___
Pyt
Yury Selivanov added the comment:
Andrew, what are your thoughts on this one?
--
nosy: +asvetlov
versions: +Python 3.8 -Python 3.5, Python 3.6
___
Python tracker
<https://bugs.python.org/issue31
Yury Selivanov added the comment:
If this issue isn't yet fixed could you please submit a PR?
--
___
Python tracker
<https://bugs.python.org/issue31647>
___
___
Yury Selivanov added the comment:
Closing this issue. I'll open a new one for the planned asyncio docs overhaul.
--
resolution: -> out of date
stage: -> resolved
status: open -> closed
___
Python tracker
<https://bugs.pyth
New submission from Yury Selivanov :
An overhaul of asyncio documentation is long overdue. Here's the structure for
it that I have in mind:
- Introduction
(what is asyncio and async/await)
- A quick tutorial
(show how to use asyncio.run() and basic functions like asyncio.sleep() and
New submission from Yury Selivanov :
Doing that will break subprocesses.
--
components: asyncio
messages: 317717
nosy: asvetlov, yselivanov
priority: normal
severity: normal
status: open
title: Prohibit adding a signal handler for SIGCHLD
versions: Python 3.8
Yury Selivanov added the comment:
IMO this particular patch is OK and should go in. I'll take another look at
the PR in a few days (and will run some benchmarks myself before making the
decision).
--
___
Python tracker
<https://bugs.py
New submission from Yury Selivanov :
1. asyncio.BufferedProtocol is a new Python 3.7 *provisional* API.
2. asyncio.Transport.set_protocol() doesn't support switching between Protocol
and BufferedProtocol.
3. Because of (2), another *new* Python 3.7 API "loop.start_tls" d
Change by Yury Selivanov :
--
keywords: +patch
pull_requests: +6764
stage: -> patch review
___
Python tracker
<https://bugs.python.org/issue33654>
___
___
Py
Yury Selivanov added the comment:
Setting "release blocker" to get Ned's attention.
--
priority: high -> release blocker
___
Python tracker
<https://bugs.
Yury Selivanov added the comment:
Thanks, Ned!
--
___
Python tracker
<https://bugs.python.org/issue33654>
___
___
Python-bugs-list mailing list
Unsubscribe:
Yury Selivanov added the comment:
Last time I looked into this I couldn't reproduce the failures on my Windows 10
VM, so it seems like an AppVeyor-specific problem. I'll take another look on
Monday.
Andrew, if you have a Windows environment, could you please try to run
Yury Selivanov added the comment:
> But in msg317468 Victor asserts that it sometimes fails on Linux, too?
Hm, I missed that. I'll definitely take a look.
--
___
Python tracker
<https://bugs.python.org
Yury Selivanov added the comment:
Terry, you somehow deleted Christian from the nosy list.
Christian,
> It's failing reproducible with OpenSSL 1.1.1 and TLS 1.3 enabled. I haven't
> seen it failing with TLS 1.2 yet.
On Linux or Windows?
--
nosy: +
Yury Selivanov added the comment:
"if not block:" means EOF and replacing it with "if len(block) < self._limit:"
would break everything.
There might be another bug here (with TTY) or, maybe, there's a bug in
pty_test.py. For example, I don't see how you cl
Yury Selivanov added the comment:
> You are also correct that there is no clean up for closing the pipes.
It's not just about the cleanup. If you don't close the pipes, they will be
open forever, so there will be no EOF for which read(-1) will
Yury Selivanov added the comment:
> I should have known better that I wasn't going to find a bug in python :)
We have a lot of bugs, as any other software :) Don't be afraid to open issues.
I'll close this bug, feel free to re-open.
--
resolution: -> not a bu
1001 - 1100 of 3129 matches
Mail list logo
