Skip to content

[3.9] [3.10] gh-91607: Fix several test_concurrent_futures tests to actually test what they claim (GH-91600) (GH-91612) #91617

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
merged 2 commits into from
Apr 17, 2022

Conversation

gpshead
Copy link
Member

@gpshead gpshead commented Apr 16, 2022

  • Fix test_concurrent_futures to actually test what it says.

Many ProcessPoolExecutor based tests were ignoring the mp_context
and using the default instead. This meant we lacked proper test
coverage of all of them.

Also removes the old _prime_executor() worker delay seeding code
as it appears to have no point and causes 20-30 seconds extra
latency on this already long test. It also interfered with some
of the refactoring to fix the above to not needlessly create their
own executor when setUp has already created an appropriate one.

  • Don't import the name from multiprocessing directly to avoid confusion.

(cherry picked from commit 7fa3a5a)
(cherry picked from commit 9a45893)

…s to actually test what they claim (pythonGH-91600) (pythonGH-91612)

* Fix test_concurrent_futures to actually test what it says.

Many ProcessPoolExecutor based tests were ignoring the mp_context
and using the default instead.  This meant we lacked proper test
coverage of all of them.

Also removes the old _prime_executor() worker delay seeding code
as it appears to have no point and causes 20-30 seconds extra
latency on this already long test.  It also interfered with some
of the refactoring to fix the above to not needlessly create their
own executor when setUp has already created an appropriate one.

* Don't import the name from multiprocessing directly to avoid confusion.

(cherry picked from commit 7fa3a5a)

Co-authored-by: Gregory P. Smith <greg@krypto.org>.
(cherry picked from commit 9a45893)

Co-authored-by: Gregory P. Smith <greg@krypto.org>
@gpshead gpshead added type-bug An unexpected behavior, bug, or error tests Tests in the Lib/test dir labels Apr 16, 2022
@gpshead gpshead self-assigned this Apr 16, 2022
@gpshead gpshead merged commit 2a43afd into python:3.9 Apr 17, 2022
@gpshead gpshead deleted the backport-9a45893-3.9 branch April 18, 2022 22:16
hello-adam pushed a commit to hello-adam/cpython that referenced this pull request Jun 2, 2022
…s to actually test what they claim (pythonGH-91600) (pythonGH-91612) (python#91617)

* Fix test_concurrent_futures to actually test what it says.

Many ProcessPoolExecutor based tests were ignoring the mp_context
and using the default instead.  This meant we lacked proper test
coverage of all of them.

Also removes the old _prime_executor() worker delay seeding code
as it appears to have no point and causes 20-30 seconds extra
latency on this already long test.  It also interfered with some
of the refactoring to fix the above to not needlessly create their
own executor when setUp has already created an appropriate one.

* Don't import the name from multiprocessing directly to avoid confusion.

(cherry picked from commit 7fa3a5a)
(cherry picked from commit 9a45893)
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
tests Tests in the Lib/test dir type-bug An unexpected behavior, bug, or error
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

test_concurrent_futures does not exercise each mp_context method reliably due to code smell
2 participants