Refactor file locking code for testing #75
Conversation
|
Only question is naming convention of |
|
I take that back... The |
| pass | ||
| if lock_acquired or datetime.now() > start + timedelta(seconds=timeout): | ||
| break | ||
| time.sleep(1) |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
i really don't like this way of implementing a timeout. if the timeout is necessary, we should probably do it some other way...
http://stackoverflow.com/questions/5255220/fcntl-flock-how-to-implement-a-timeout
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I can work around it, but it's worth mentioning that the suggested method is somewhat global to the process even if it is better.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I don't think we have any plans or motivation to multithread Needy itself, so I'd definitely prefer it.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
That's about what I thought. Definitely better to just allow multiple single-threaded Needy instances.
vmrob
force-pushed
the
file-locking
branch
2 times, most recently
from
c7c8b32
to
dc04c5d
Compare
|
Much cleaner. |
vmrob
force-pushed
the
file-locking
branch
2 times, most recently
from
fc9f6dc
to
f6660b0
Compare
| if not self.__blocking: | ||
| return None | ||
| print('Waiting for other needy instances to terminate...') | ||
| fcntl.flock(self.__fd, fcntl.LOCK_EX) | ||
| self.__fd = lock_file(self.__path, timeout=None) |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
you could leave off the timeout=None here
|
Looks good. I'll merge it once Travis approves. |
|
Removed the |
No description provided.