-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 10.4k
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
Asyncio task exception upon unhandled ExecuteBatchError exception #31043
Comments
It's similar to this issue: #31570 The server failed with So we'll indeed trying to notify client about server failure but something went wrong during this process, we'll need more logs to debug core failure. Please comment here with logs if anyone is able to reproduce with additional environment flags: |
I've reproduced with debug logs: #31570 (comment) |
More than 30 days have passed since label "disposition/requires reporter action" was added. Closing this issue. Please feel free to re-open/create a new issue if this is still relevant. |
Closing this particular issue as a duplicate of #31570. The investigation will continue there. |
What version of gRPC and what language are you using?
gRPC Python 1.49.0
What operating system (Linux, Windows,...) and version?
Docker image: python:3.10-alpine
What runtime / compiler are you using (e.g. python version or version of gcc)
Python 3.10.7
What did you do?
Exception being raised internally within the servicer method handler due to satellite-like internet connection (upstream cloud connection timed out).
Cannot reproduce reliably - something to do with timing of exceptions being raised. Seems to be a rare problem.
What did you expect to see?
No gRPC future error upon an exception being raised internal to the servicer method handler. The client is notified of a failure instead upon service call return.
What did you see instead?
Anything else we should know about your project / environment?
Haven't turned on verbose gRPC logging - if you think it's worth while I can try.
Maybe related to #30984 ?
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: