Message273260
| Author | martin.panter |
|---|---|
| Recipients | BreamoreBoy, brett.cannon, chris.jerdonek, ezio.melotti, martin.panter, serhiy.storchaka, zach.ware |
| Date | 2016-08-21.02:50:28 |
| SpamBayes Score | -1.0 |
| Marked as misclassified | Yes |
| Message-id | <1471747828.65.0.974451092388.issue16968@psf.upfronthosting.co.za> |
| In-reply-to |
| Content | |
|---|---|
I don’t know much about the concurrent.futures testing, but in general IMO it makes more sense to call thread.join(), or at least @reap_threads, in each individual test case that needs it. If appropriate, you can call join() with a one-second timeout, which should be functionally equivalent to @reap_threads. Leaving a background thread running while you start another test seems like a bad idea; concurrent tests aren’t meant to be run in the same process. Also, I added a gc_collect() call to the test infrastructure in Issue 27787, which may help avoid problems with spurious “dangling” thread object references. |
|
| History | |||
|---|---|---|---|
| Date | User | Action | Args |
| 2016-08-21 02:50:28 | martin.panter | set | recipients: + martin.panter, brett.cannon, ezio.melotti, chris.jerdonek, BreamoreBoy, zach.ware, serhiy.storchaka |
| 2016-08-21 02:50:28 | martin.panter | set | messageid: <1471747828.65.0.974451092388.issue16968@psf.upfronthosting.co.za> |
| 2016-08-21 02:50:28 | martin.panter | link | issue16968 messages |
| 2016-08-21 02:50:28 | martin.panter | create | |