Message369510
| Author | chris.jerdonek |
|---|---|
| Recipients | BTaskaya, aeros, asvetlov, carltongibson, chris.jerdonek, eamanu, felixxm, yselivanov |
| Date | 2020-05-21.09:28:45 |
| SpamBayes Score | -1.0 |
| Marked as misclassified | Yes |
| Message-id | <1590053325.89.0.988261239971.issue40696@roundup.psfhosted.org> |
| In-reply-to |
| Content | |
|---|---|
I just posted a draft PR that implements the narrower fix: https://github.com/python/cpython/pull/20287 I confirmed that the Django test passes with it. I also included two regression tests: one using only generators, and one more like the Django test that awaits a task. My solution was to update the exception context in gen_send_ex() using _PyErr_SetObject() instead of _PyErr_ChainExceptions() -- because _PyErr_SetObject() does the cycle detection we've been discussing, and _PyErr_ChainExceptions() doesn't. While _PyErr_SetObject()'s cycle detection isn't complete in that it can't detect cycles that begin further down the chain, it's good enough for this case. |
|
| History | |||
|---|---|---|---|
| Date | User | Action | Args |
| 2020-05-21 09:28:45 | chris.jerdonek | set | recipients: + chris.jerdonek, asvetlov, yselivanov, eamanu, BTaskaya, aeros, carltongibson, felixxm |
| 2020-05-21 09:28:45 | chris.jerdonek | set | messageid: <1590053325.89.0.988261239971.issue40696@roundup.psfhosted.org> |
| 2020-05-21 09:28:45 | chris.jerdonek | link | issue40696 messages |
| 2020-05-21 09:28:45 | chris.jerdonek | create | |