Verify that the installed loop matches ASYNCIO_EVENT_LOOP #5529
Conversation
This file contains 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
Codecov Report
@@ Coverage Diff @@
## master #5529 +/- ##
==========================================
+ Coverage 88.69% 88.70% +0.01%
==========================================
Files 162 162
Lines 10966 10977 +11
Branches 1796 1798 +2
==========================================
+ Hits 9726 9737 +11
Misses 960 960
Partials 280 280
|
wRAR
approved these changes
Jun 14, 2022
Laerte
reviewed
Jun 14, 2022
Co-authored-by: Laerte Pereira <5853172+Laerte@users.noreply.github.com>
Laerte
approved these changes
Jun 14, 2022
kmike
reviewed
Jun 26, 2022
kmike
approved these changes
Jun 26, 2022
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
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Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.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.
I realized this was worth doing while working on #5528, but I thought it best not to make it part of that pull request.
I consider it a (minor) bug that we did not check this before, so I am not completely against adding this to 2.6, but since this is not a regression, I also do not see a reason to add this before 2.7.