[issue17707] Multiprocessing queue get method does not block for short timeouts

New submission from Sultan Qasim: This issue seems to be new in Python 3.3.1. This worked fine in Python 3.3.0 and earlier. I am using fully up-to-date installation of Arch Linux, running the official arch repo's 64 bit build of Python 3.3.1. This issue is probably a result of the changes to mu

[issue17707] Multiprocessing queue get method does not block for short timeouts

Changes by Sultan Qasim : -- type: -> behavior ___ Python tracker ___ ___ Python-bugs-list mailing list Unsubscribe: http://mail.pyt

[issue17707] Multiprocessing queue get method does not block for short timeouts

Charles-François Natali added the comment: Indeed, that's a regression introduced by fix for issue #10527. Just a rounding error: """ --- Lib/multiprocessing/connection.py.orig 2013-04-13 06:27:57.0 + +++ Lib/multiprocessing/connection.py 2013-04-13 06:25:23.0 + @

[issue17707] Multiprocessing queue get method does not block for short timeouts

Changes by Charles-François Natali : -- priority: normal -> high ___ Python tracker ___ ___ Python-bugs-list mailing list Unsubscribe:

[issue17707] Multiprocessing queue get method does not block for short timeouts

Changes by Antoine Pitrou : -- nosy: +benjamin.peterson, georg.brandl, giampaolo.rodola, larry priority: high -> release blocker stage: -> patch review versions: +Python 2.7, Python 3.2, Python 3.4 ___ Python tracker

[issue17707] Multiprocessing queue get method does not block for short timeouts

Georg Brandl added the comment: Very good, regression #2 for 3.3.2. Keep them coming right now :) -- ___ Python tracker ___ ___ Python

[issue17707] Multiprocessing queue get method does not block for short timeouts

Giampaolo Rodola' added the comment: My patch, my fault. I'm very sorry. -- ___ Python tracker ___ ___ Python-bugs-list mailing list U

[issue17707] Multiprocessing queue get method does not block for short timeouts

Georg Brandl added the comment: Don't worry, mistakes happen. My message was actually positive: it's better to catch the problems now than two weeks after the regression fix release... -- ___ Python tracker _

[issue17707] Multiprocessing queue get method does not block for short timeouts

Charles-François Natali added the comment: As they say, s*** happens (one of my first patches caused a regression with thread-local storage in multiple interpreters setup, so...) Note that it's a strong case for selectors inclusion (issue #16853) :-) BTW, this would probably need a test, and si

[issue17707] Multiprocessing queue get method does not block for short timeouts

Giampaolo Rodola' added the comment: Assigning to me. Will get back in 1 or 2 days. -- assignee: -> giampaolo.rodola ___ Python tracker ___ _

[issue17707] Multiprocessing queue get method does not block for short timeouts

Giampaolo Rodola' added the comment: Patch including a unittest is in attachment. -- keywords: +patch Added file: http://bugs.python.org/file29855/issue17707.patch ___ Python tracker ___

[issue17707] Multiprocessing queue get method does not block for short timeouts

Changes by Giampaolo Rodola' : Removed file: http://bugs.python.org/file29855/issue17707.patch ___ Python tracker ___ ___ Python-bugs-list mai

[issue17707] Multiprocessing queue get method does not block for short timeouts

Changes by Giampaolo Rodola' : Added file: http://bugs.python.org/file29856/issue17707.patch ___ Python tracker ___ ___ Python-bugs-list maili

[issue17707] Multiprocessing queue get method does not block for short timeouts

Antoine Pitrou added the comment: Your test is much too strict (and I don't understand why you're using a Decimal). I think testing that the delta is greater or equal than 0.2 would be enough. -- nosy: +pitrou ___ Python tracker

[issue17707] Multiprocessing queue get method does not block for short timeouts

Giampaolo Rodola' added the comment: Yeah, right. Too strict indeed. I'll get rid of the assertLessEqual statement. Here's why Decimal is necessary: >>> import time >>> time.time() - time.time() -9.5367431640625e-07 >>> from decimal import Decimal >>> Decimal(time.time()) - Decimal(time.time())

[issue17707] Multiprocessing queue get method does not block for short timeouts

Antoine Pitrou added the comment: I don't understand what you're worrying about here. This is just because of evaluation order: >>> import itertools >>> it = itertools.count() >>> f = it.__next__ >>> f() - f() -1 >>> f() - f() -1 -- ___ Python track

[issue17707] Multiprocessing queue get method does not block for short timeouts

Giampaolo Rodola' added the comment: Without using Decimal and without patching connections.py (hence q.get() returns immediately) the resulting delta is mismatched: == FAIL: test_timeout (__main__.WithProcessesTestQueue) -

[issue17707] Multiprocessing queue get method does not block for short timeouts

Antoine Pitrou added the comment: > Without using Decimal and without patching connections.py (hence > q.get() returns immediately) the resulting delta is mismatched: Well, why are you surprised the test fails without the patch? -- ___ Python tracker

[issue17707] Multiprocessing queue get method does not block for short timeouts

Giampaolo Rodola' added the comment: You're right, sorry. I got confused by the exponential notation in 9.107589721679688e-05. Updated patch is in attachment. -- Added file: http://bugs.python.org/file29857/issue17707.patch ___ Python tracker

[issue17707] Multiprocessing queue get method does not block for short timeouts

Charles-François Natali added the comment: I think we should test multiple timeout values (e.g. 0.1, 0.5, 1 and 1.5): it'll take a little longer, but since the test suite didn't detect it, that's really lacking. Also, rathr than using an harcoded delta, we could maybe use a fudger factor, like wh

[issue17707] Multiprocessing queue get method does not block for short timeouts

Giampaolo Rodola' added the comment: Maybe I'm misinterpreting what you wrote but the test fails before the patch and succeeds after it so what's the point in adding multiple tests with different timeouts? > Also, rathr than using an harcoded delta, we could maybe use a fudger > factor, like

[issue17707] Multiprocessing queue get method does not block for short timeouts

Charles-François Natali added the comment: > Maybe I'm misinterpreting what you wrote but the test fails before the patch > and succeeds after it so what's the point in adding multiple tests with > different timeouts? Well, the test you added tests explicitely for a value < 1s because this spe

[issue17707] Multiprocessing queue get method does not block for short timeouts

Giampaolo Rodola' added the comment: I think I'll just stick with the original patch. -- ___ Python tracker ___ ___ Python-bugs-list m

[issue17707] Multiprocessing queue get method does not block for short timeouts

Changes by Giampaolo Rodola' : -- versions: -Python 2.7 ___ Python tracker ___ ___ Python-bugs-list mailing list Unsubscribe: http:/

[issue17707] Multiprocessing queue get method does not block for short timeouts

Roundup Robot added the comment: New changeset 65623d7dc76e by Giampaolo Rodola' in branch '3.3': Fix issue #17707: multiprocessing.Queue's get() method does not block for short timeouts. http://hg.python.org/cpython/rev/65623d7dc76e -- nosy: +python-dev ___

[issue17707] Multiprocessing queue get method does not block for short timeouts

Roundup Robot added the comment: New changeset 87882c96d138 by Giampaolo Rodola' in branch 'default': Fix issue #17707: multiprocessing.Queue's get() method does not block for short timeouts. http://hg.python.org/cpython/rev/87882c96d138 -- ___ Pytho

[issue17707] Multiprocessing queue get method does not block for short timeouts

Changes by Giampaolo Rodola' : -- keywords: +3.2regression, 3.3regression resolution: -> fixed status: open -> closed versions: -Python 3.2 ___ Python tracker ___ _