Create an event loop if it doesn't exist #1857
Merged
Conversation
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
|
Can you please leave a reference here for posterity, to the python docs announcing this change. I wonder why they did it? |
Python 3.14 has removed the implicit event loop creation. The test suite ran in Fedora test environment (copr) and in the buildsystem with varying results: sometimes the tests passed, more often they didn't. I think that if the tests are run in parallel, sometimes they reuse an event loop created for another test case. This change ensures that if no event loop is present, a new one will be created. Announced in https://docs.python.org/dev/whatsnew/3.14.html#id7
|
Sure, it's here: https://docs.python.org/dev/whatsnew/3.14.html#id7 |
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
Python 3.14 has removed the implicit event loop creation. I was running the test suite in Fedora test environment (copr) and in the buildsystem, with varying results: sometimes the tests passed, more often they didn't. I think that if the tests are run in parallel, sometimes they reuse an event loop created for another test case. This ensures that if no event loop is present, a new one will be created.