Skip to content

Different Eventloops on windows can now be explored #178

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

Open
wants to merge 15 commits into
base: master
Choose a base branch
from

Conversation

Vizonex
Copy link
Contributor

@Vizonex Vizonex commented Jul 9, 2025

What do these changes do?

These Changes unlock the ability to use different event-loops with Windows in the future. This will allow users to explore other ideas and workarounds to maybe even Subclass the ProactorEventLoop to get no-event threads instances to work. Winloop no longer needs to be imported to aiodns thus saving a bit of time with checking and configuring. I moved it to a function mainly to be simulated but I can always move these parts back to the make_channel function if needed.

Are there changes in behavior for the user?

Users will no longer be locked to using winloop or the SelectorEventLoop if a windows operating system is being used. Importing winloop to aiodns inside the dns resolver no longer needs to be done. I changed the wording of the error message. Now it says it requires any eventloop but the ProactorEventLoop aiodns cannot use ProactorEventLoop on Windows if event-threads cant be utilized implying that winloop or the SelectorEventLoop or Any Custom EventLoops instead.

Related issue number

Checklist

  • I think the code is well written
  • Unit tests for the changes exist
  • Documentation reflects the changes

@Vizonex
Copy link
Contributor Author

Vizonex commented Jul 9, 2025

whoops I did not take ProactorEventLoop attribute into account. When I get back from other activities I will fix this immediately.

Copy link

codecov bot commented Jul 10, 2025

Codecov Report

All modified and coverable lines are covered by tests ✅

Project coverage is 97.01%. Comparing base (ad96d79) to head (8dcdaa3).
Report is 1 commits behind head on master.

Additional details and impacted files
@@            Coverage Diff             @@
##           master     #178      +/-   ##
==========================================
- Coverage   97.25%   97.01%   -0.24%     
==========================================
  Files           3        3              
  Lines         547      503      -44     
  Branches       34       31       -3     
==========================================
- Hits          532      488      -44     
  Misses          8        8              
  Partials        7        7              

☔ View full report in Codecov by Sentry.
📢 Have feedback on the report? Share it here.

🚀 New features to boost your workflow:
  • ❄️ Test Analytics: Detect flaky tests, report on failures, and find test suite problems.

@Vizonex
Copy link
Contributor Author

Vizonex commented Jul 10, 2025

Thank goodness I got all of that done. That took longer than it needed to to solve.

@bdraco
Copy link
Member

bdraco commented Aug 3, 2025

Thanks. Once we sort out #175 we can move this forward

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

2 participants