Skip to content
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

bpo-32751: Wait for task cancel in asyncio.wait_for() when timeout <= 0 #21895

Merged

Conversation

elprans
Copy link
Contributor

@elprans elprans commented Aug 15, 2020

When I was fixing bpo-32751 back in GH-7216 I missed the case when
timeout is zero or negative. This takes care of that.

Props to @aaliddell for noticing the inconsistency.

https://bugs.python.org/issue32751

When I was fixing bpo-32751 back in pythonGH-7216 I missed the case when
*timeout* is zero or negative.  This takes care of that.

Props to @aaliddell for noticing the inconsistency.
@1st1
Copy link
Member

1st1 commented Aug 18, 2020

closing/reopening to hopefully fix travis

@1st1 1st1 merged commit c517fc7 into python:master Aug 26, 2020
@miss-islington
Copy link
Contributor

Thanks @elprans for the PR, and @1st1 for merging it 🌮🎉.. I'm working now to backport this PR to: 3.7, 3.8, 3.9.
🐍🍒⛏🤖

@bedevere-bot
Copy link

@1st1: Please replace # with GH- in the commit message next time. Thanks!

miss-islington pushed a commit to miss-islington/cpython that referenced this pull request Aug 26, 2020
… 0 (pythonGH-21895)

When I was fixing bpo-32751 back in pythonGH-7216 I missed the case when
*timeout* is zero or negative.  This takes care of that.

Props to @aaliddell for noticing the inconsistency.
(cherry picked from commit c517fc7)

Co-authored-by: Elvis Pranskevichus <elvis@magic.io>
@bedevere-bot
Copy link

GH-21963 is a backport of this pull request to the 3.9 branch.

@bedevere-bot bedevere-bot removed the needs backport to 3.9 only security fixes label Aug 26, 2020
@miss-islington
Copy link
Contributor

Sorry, @elprans and @1st1, I could not cleanly backport this to 3.8 due to a conflict.
Please backport using cherry_picker on command line.
cherry_picker c517fc712105c8e5930cb42baaebdbe37fc3e15f 3.8

@miss-islington
Copy link
Contributor

Sorry @elprans and @1st1, I had trouble checking out the 3.7 backport branch.
Please backport using cherry_picker on command line.
cherry_picker c517fc712105c8e5930cb42baaebdbe37fc3e15f 3.7

ambv pushed a commit that referenced this pull request Aug 26, 2020
… 0 (GH-21895) (GH-21963)

When I was fixing bpo-32751 back in GH-7216 I missed the case when
*timeout* is zero or negative.  This takes care of that.

Props to @aaliddell for noticing the inconsistency.
(cherry picked from commit c517fc7)

Co-authored-by: Elvis Pranskevichus <elvis@magic.io>
@bedevere-bot
Copy link

GH-21967 is a backport of this pull request to the 3.8 branch.

@bedevere-bot bedevere-bot removed the needs backport to 3.8 only security fixes label Aug 26, 2020
@bedevere-bot
Copy link

GH-21968 is a backport of this pull request to the 3.7 branch.

elprans added a commit to elprans/cpython that referenced this pull request Aug 26, 2020
…out <= 0 (pythonGH-21895)

When I was fixing bpo-32751 back in pythonGH-7216 I missed the case when
*timeout* is zero or negative.  This takes care of that.

Props to @aaliddell for noticing the inconsistency..
(cherry picked from commit c517fc7)

Co-authored-by: Elvis Pranskevichus <elvis@magic.io>
elprans added a commit to elprans/cpython that referenced this pull request Aug 26, 2020
…out <= 0 (pythonGH-21895)

When I was fixing bpo-32751 back in pythonGH-7216 I missed the case when
*timeout* is zero or negative.  This takes care of that.

Props to @aaliddell for noticing the inconsistency..
(cherry picked from commit c517fc7)
1st1 pushed a commit that referenced this pull request Aug 26, 2020
…out <= 0 (GH-21895) (#21967)

When I was fixing bpo-32751 back in GH-7216 I missed the case when
*timeout* is zero or negative.  This takes care of that.

Props to @aaliddell for noticing the inconsistency..
(cherry picked from commit c517fc7)
xzy3 pushed a commit to xzy3/cpython that referenced this pull request Oct 18, 2020
… 0 (python#21895)

When I was fixing bpo-32751 back in pythonGH-7216 I missed the case when
*timeout* is zero or negative.  This takes care of that.

Props to @aaliddell for noticing the inconsistency.
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

None yet

5 participants