-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 195
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
Add a timeout option to htex command client #3441
Merged
Merged
Conversation
This file contains 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
This is in preparation in an upcoming PR for replacing the current multiprocessing.Queue based report of interchange ports (which has a 120s timeout) with a command client based retrieval of that information (so now the command client needs to implement a 120s timeout to closely replicate that behaviour). That work is itself part of using fork/exec to launch the interchange, rather than multiprocessing.fork (issue #3373) When the command client timeouts after sending a command, then it sets itself to permanently bad: this is because the state of the channel is now unknown. eg. Should the next action be to receive a response from a previously timed out command that was eventually executed? Should the channel be recreated assuming a previously sent command was never sent? Tagging issue #3376 (command client is not thread safe) because I feel like reworking this timeout behaviour and reworking that thread safety might be a single piece of deeper work.
(needs a bit more testing with the no-timeout case, wups) |
tagging @rjmello for review because he most recently touched anything to do with zmq |
rjmello
requested changes
May 17, 2024
Co-authored-by: rjmello <30907815+rjmello@users.noreply.github.com>
Co-authored-by: rjmello <30907815+rjmello@users.noreply.github.com>
rjmello
approved these changes
May 27, 2024
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
🎸
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.
This is in preparation in an upcoming PR for replacing the current multiprocessing.Queue based report of interchange ports (which has a 120s timeout) with a command client based retrieval of that information (so now the command client needs to implement a 120s timeout to closely replicate that behaviour). That work is itself part of using fork/exec to launch the interchange, rather than multiprocessing.fork (issue #3373)
When the command client timeouts after sending a command, then it sets itself to permanently bad: this is because the state of the channel is now unknown. eg. Should the next action be to receive a response from a previously timed out command that was eventually executed? Should the channel be recreated assuming a previously sent command was never sent?
Tagging issue #3376 (command client is not thread safe) because I feel like reworking this timeout behaviour and reworking that thread safety might be a single piece of deeper work.
Changed Behaviour
Timeout functionality is unused at the moment, so this shouldn't change things.
Type of change