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

Remove potential dead lock when pending limit is exceeded. #297

Closed

Conversation

hlecnt
Copy link

@hlecnt hlecnt commented Dec 27, 2021

What do these changes do?

Potential dead lock in the library when the pending limit is exceeded. A simplified use case is available in unit tests.

Are there changes in behavior for the user?

Behavior is not changed from a user point of view.

Related issue number

Related issue number: #290

Checklist

  • I think the code is well written
  • Unit tests for the changes exist
  • Documentation reflects the changes
  • Add a new news fragment into the CHANGES folder
    • name it <issue_id>.<type> (e.g. 588.bugfix)
    • if you don't have an issue_id change it to the pr id after creating the PR
    • ensure type is one of the following:
      • .feature: Signifying a new feature.
      • .bugfix: Signifying a bug fix.
      • .doc: Signifying a documentation improvement.
      • .removal: Signifying a deprecation or removal of public API.
      • .misc: A ticket has been closed, but it is not of interest to users.
    • Make sure to use full sentences with correct case and punctuation, for example: Fix issue with non-ascii contents in doctest text files.

@hlecnt
Copy link
Author

hlecnt commented Dec 28, 2021

This PR could be a duplicate of #135 but uses a different approach: it keeps adding jobs to the job set.

@Dreamsorcerer
Copy link
Member

We've merged #135 now, so I'm assuming this is no longer needed.
If you think the test is still worth adding, please open another PR.

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.

2 participants