docs: document subprocess_worker as single blocking worker#341
Merged
Conversation
|
This was referenced May 16, 2026
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
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
1 participant
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Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.Suggestions cannot be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.
What changed
Added a design note to the module docstring in
workers/subprocess_worker.pyclarifying that there is currently a single worker subprocess per build timestamp and that execution is blocking.Why
The file was renamed from
isolated_workertosubprocess_worker, which no longer conveys the single/blocking nature of the current design. A docstring note captures this intent without encoding it in the filename (which would become a misnomer if parallelism is added later).Benefit
Future readers understand the current design constraints and where future parallelism work would plug in.