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

[WIP] use new KernelClient.execute_interactive #360

Closed
wants to merge 1 commit into from

Conversation

minrk
Copy link
Member

@minrk minrk commented Aug 11, 2016

in execute preprocessor

Significantly simplifies the preprocessor, relying on upstream implementation.

WIP because it's not released yet.

I hit two missing features that we should either drop here or add there:

  1. When we interrupt-on-timeout, we need to flush outputs,
    which suggests that flushing outputs with the hook
    should be a method on its own.
  2. ExecutePreprocessor allows a separate timeout for no output,
    not just a total timeout for the whole execution.

cf jupyter/jupyter_client#185

@mpacer mpacer added this to the no action milestone Aug 25, 2016
@minrk minrk modified the milestones: 5.1, no action Aug 31, 2016
@mpacer mpacer modified the milestones: 5.2, 5.1 Jan 21, 2017
@mpacer
Copy link
Member

mpacer commented May 24, 2017

@minrk is this still active?

@mpacer mpacer modified the milestones: 5.3, 5.2 May 24, 2017
@minrk
Copy link
Member Author

minrk commented May 25, 2017

I'd like to come back to it at some point, but it's far from urgent. Feel free to close if it's in the way.

@takluyver
Copy link
Member

@minrk I believe the released version of jupyter_client has execute_interactive, if you want to come back to this.

@minrk
Copy link
Member Author

minrk commented Jul 20, 2017

I sure do! Trying to finish up some JupyterHub stuff right now, but I hope to find time for this at some point.

@mpacer mpacer modified the milestones: 5.3, 5.4 Aug 26, 2017
@akhmerov
Copy link
Member

Is this PR still relevant?

@blink1073 blink1073 modified the milestones: 5.4, 5.5 Aug 29, 2018
@SylvainCorlay
Copy link
Member

@minrk wow, that is indeed removing a lot a code!

Is this something you would like to rebase and include in the next release?

@MSeal MSeal removed this from the 5.5 milestone Apr 23, 2019
@MSeal
Copy link
Contributor

MSeal commented Apr 23, 2019

Closing this issue as the code in question has been entirely rewritten and refactored in 5.5 and I don't believe this is relevant anymore. Reopen with rebase if there's still interest in something I missed :)

@MSeal MSeal closed this Apr 23, 2019
@MSeal MSeal added this to the no action milestone Sep 8, 2020
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.

7 participants