Backport PR #10239 on branch 5.x #10240
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
![lumberbot-app[bot]](https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/in/812?s=60&v=4){kind=small}
… if wait=False The wait parameter is meant to add a prompt before returning from the hook for editors that exit immediatly (fork/CreateProcess) but it accidently prevented waiting at all for the process when it was False. I think it was meant to be `not wait and proc.wait()` but we might as well wait for the process in the `wait=True` case anyhow. It's less confusing. It would be nice if this is backported to 5.x.
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Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.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.
Backport PR #10239: IPython/lib/editorhooks.py: wait for process even if wait=False
The wait parameter is meant to add a prompt before returning from
the hook for editors that exit immediatly (fork/CreateProcess) but
it accidently prevented waiting at all for the process when it was
False. I think it was meant to be
not wait and proc.wait()but wemight as well wait for the process in the
wait=Truecase anyhow. It'sless confusing.
It would be nice if this is backported to 5.x.