Asyncio Module VectorCollection Support [5/6]#751
Conversation
- Fixed a bug where an asyncio Lock was tried to be acquired without a release - Store asyncio tasks in order not to lose them - Removed start/shutdown from AsyncioReactor
…integration-tests2
…integration-tests2
…integration-tests2
…integration-tests2
|
|
||
| class AsyncioReactor: | ||
| def __init__(self, loop: AbstractEventLoop | None = None): | ||
| self._is_live = False |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Why is this not needed anymore?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
It was never used, so removed it.
yuce
changed the title
# Conflicts: # hazelcast/internal/asyncio_connection.py # hazelcast/internal/asyncio_reactor.py
|
|
||
| async def asyncTearDown(self): | ||
| await self.vector_collection.destroy() | ||
| await super().asyncTearDown() |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
how come we do not have similar line to super class call for the asyncore test?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
SingleMemberTestCase derives from unittest.IsolatedAsyncioTestCase.
unittest.IsolatedAsyncioTestCase doesn't do anything in its asyncSetUp or asyncTearDown, so calling super() is not necessary for the tests that derive from unittest.IsolatedAsyncioTestCase.
SingleMemberTestCase does things in asyncSetUporasyncTearDown, so the test classes that derive from it must call super()`.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Seems like we instantiate new client per each test case in asyncio version of the test and in the asyncore version instantiate per class. We may want to make the two test similar for long ter maintenance.
4 participants
No description provided.