-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 36
Handling update_interval values. #185
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
Conversation
except (OSError, OverflowError) as err: | ||
self.logger.error('Error in time.sleep. ' | ||
'Provided update_interval value may be too big. Error: {}'.format(str(err))) | ||
raise |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Should we still be raising in this case or just pass it to the error handler? Not sure if raising from another thread might be an issue
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
I think if we hit either of these errors we should just raise so that the user sees this and fixes it. We cannot leave it silent.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Won't this crash the application though? The job of the error handler in this case would be raise visibility (if an error handler is provided), otherwise it'll just show up in the logs (again, if a logger is provided)
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
If the value (which is provided the first time) is too high to cause OverflowError
or OSError
the SDK won't be initialized in the first place.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
I see. Wouldn't that make this check redundant then?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Yeah, it may seem that way, but unfortunately time.sleep
has different limits. See here: https://github.com/python/cpython/blob/2.7/Modules/timemodule.c#L1030-L1155
We are not imposing any limit at init after our discussion last week. I was in favor on imposing a 1 day limit, but may be it is ok for time.sleep
to fail to let people know that they should change it to a reasonable value. That way they can adjust for their platform accordingly.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Got it. Thanks for the explanation.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
👍
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Lgtm
Summary
Handling
update_interval
values if they cause overflow or are of the invalid type.