-
-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 31.8k
gh-101438: Avoid reference cycle in ElementTree.iterparse. #114269
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
Merged
+21
−10
Merged
Changes from all commits
Commits
Show all changes
5 commits
Select commit
Hold shift + click to select a range
2119f17
gh-101438: Avoid reference cycle in ElementTree.iterparse.
colesbury 8fabc7c
Avoid regression in bm_xml_etree performance.
colesbury 1ae917e
Minor simplification
colesbury 05baaad
Update Lib/xml/etree/ElementTree.py
colesbury 307b375
Update 2024-01-18-22-29-28.gh-issue-101438.1-uUi_.rst
serhiy-storchaka File filter
Filter by extension
Conversations
Failed to load comments.
Loading
Jump to
Jump to file
Failed to load files.
Loading
Diff view
Diff view
There are no files selected for viewing
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
4 changes: 4 additions & 0 deletions
4
Misc/NEWS.d/next/Library/2024-01-18-22-29-28.gh-issue-101438.1-uUi_.rst
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Original file line number | Diff line number | Diff line change |
---|---|---|
@@ -0,0 +1,4 @@ | ||
Avoid reference cycle in ElementTree.iterparse. The iterator returned by | ||
``ElementTree.iterparse`` may hold on to a file descriptor. The reference | ||
cycle prevented prompt clean-up of the file descriptor if the returned | ||
iterator was not exhausted. |
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
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 am curious, why previously both
iterator
andIterParseIterator
names were deleted, but now onlyIterParseIterator
? And what is the purpose of this statement in the first place? I was thinking thatiterator.__closure__
stores references to these objects; therefore, unnecessary references should be deleted. However, as per my checks, closure stores only referenced variables inside;pullparser
,close_source
andwr
in this case.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 also noticed that
it.root = None
was deleted. This fact is not documented, but this may still cause unintended errors on the user side if they useroot
.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 you are right about the
it.root = None
. I did not intend a behavioral change here, so it seems like a good idea to add it back.I don't think the
del
statements matter one way or the other. They look like they break a cycle, but not really, but they also are harmless.