git.net

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

[Python-ideas] asyncio: return from multiple coroutines


Thank you very much Kyle for your answer, I am moving this conversation to
the more proper python-list for whoever wants to chime in. I summarize here
the key points of my original question (full question on the quoted email):

I have an application that listens on two websockets through the async
library https://websockets.readthedocs.io/ and I have to perform the same
function on the result, no matter where the message came from. I have
implemented a rather cumbersome solution with async Queues:
https://pastebin.com/BzaxRbtF, but i think there has to be a more
async-friendly option I am missing.

Now I move on to the comments that Kyle made

On Tue, Jun 23, 2020 at 12:32 AM Kyle Stanley <aeros167 at gmail.com> wrote:

> I believe asyncio.wait() with "return_when=FIRST_COMPLETED" would
> perform the functionality you're looking for with the
> "asyncio.on_first_return()". For details on the functionality of
> asyncio.wait(), see
> https://docs.python.org/3/library/asyncio-task.html#asyncio.wait.
>
> I understand that I can create two coroutines that call the same
> function, but it would be much cleaner (because of implementation issues)
> if I can simply create a coroutine that yields the result of whichever
> connection arrives first.
>
> You can use an asynchronous generator that will continuously yield the
> result of the first recv() that finishes (I'm assuming you mean
> "yields" literally and want multiple results from a generator, but I
> might be misinterpreting that part).
>

Yes, I want to have multiple results: the connections listening forever,
returning a result for each message received.


>
> Here's a brief example, using the recv() coroutine function from the
> pastebin linked:
>
> ```
> import asyncio
> import random
>
> async def recv(message: str, max_sleep: int):
>     sleep_time = max_sleep * random.random()
>     await asyncio.sleep(sleep_time)
>     return f'{message} awaited for {sleep_time:.2f}s'
>
> async def _start():
>     while True:
>         msgs = [
>             asyncio.create_task(recv("Messager 1", max_sleep=1)),
>             asyncio.create_task(recv("Messager 2", max_sleep=1))
>         ]
>         done, _ = await asyncio.wait(msgs,
>             return_when=asyncio.FIRST_COMPLETED)
>         result = done.pop()
>         yield await result
>
> async def main():
>     async for result in _start():
>         print(result)
>
> asyncio.run(main())
> ```


I forgot to mention thatI did try to use asyncio.wait with
`FIRST_COMPLETED`; however, the problem is that it seems to evict the
not-completed coroutines, so the messenger that arrives second does not
send the message. To check it, I have run that script without the random
sleep. just msgr1 waits 1s and msgr2 waits 2s, so msgr1 always ends first.
I expect a result like this (which I am currently getting with queues):

Messenger 1 waits for 1.0s
Messenger 1 waits for 1.0s
Messenger 2 waits for 2.0s
Messenger 1 waits for 1.0s
Messenger 1 waits for 1.0s
Messenger 2 waits for 2.0s
Messenger 1 waits for 1.0s
...

but instead I got this:

Messenger 1 waits for 1.0s
Messenger 1 waits for 1.0s
Messenger 1 waits for 1.0s
Messenger 1 waits for 1.0s
Messenger 1 waits for 1.0s
...





> Note that in the above example, in "msgs", you can technically pass
> the coroutine objects directly to asyncio.wait(), as they will be
> implicitly converted to tasks. However, we decided to deprecate that
> functionality in Python 3.8 since it can be rather confusing. So
> creating and passing the tasks is a better practice.
>

Thanks for that info, I am still trying to grasp the best practices
surrounding mostly the explicitness in async.


> > Again, it's quite likely I am not seeing something obvious, but I didn't
> know where else to ask.
>
> If you're not mostly certain or relatively inexperienced with the
> specific area that the question pertains to, I'd recommend asking on
> python-list first (or another Python user community). python-ideas is
> primarily intended for new feature proposals/suggestions. Although if
> you've tried other resources and haven't found an answer, it's
> perfectly fine to ask a question as part of the suggestion post.
>
>
>
Original question, as posted in python-ideas:


> On Mon, Jun 22, 2020 at 6:24 PM Pablo Alcain <pabloalcain at gmail.com>
> wrote:
> >
> > Hey everyone. I have been looking into asyncio lately, and even though I
> have had my fair share of work, I still have some of it very shaky, so
> first of all forgive me if what I am saying here is already implemented and
> I totally missed it (so far, it looks *really* likely).
> >
> > Basically this is the situation: I have an application that listens on
> two websockets through the async library
> https://websockets.readthedocs.io/ and I have to perform the same
> function on the result, no matter where the message came from. I understand
> that I can create two coroutines that call the same function, but it would
> be much cleaner (because of implementation issues) if I can simply create a
> coroutine that yields the result of whichever connection arrives first.
> >
> > I have implemented a rather cumbersome solution with async Queues (as I
> would do in threading), in which each connection puts its message in a
> queue and an adapter class awaits the first element of the queue on
> "receive". Here I attach a pastebin with the minimal working example:
> https://pastebin.com/BzaxRbtF
> >
> > However, it looks like a more async-friendly solution should exist,
> something like
> >
> > ```
> > async def _start():
> >     msg1 = recv("Messager 1", sleep_time=1)
> >     msg2 = recv("Messager 2", sleep_time=2)
> >     while True:
> >         result = await asyncio.on_first_return(msg1, msg2)
> >         print(result)
> > ```
> >
> > (I understand that this implementation would not work because the event
> loop doesn't know that it is "the same task repeated", but it's just to
> tell you the general idea)
> >
> > Again, it's quite likely I am not seeing something obvious, but I didn't
> know where else to ask.
> >
> > Thank you very much,
> > Pablo
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Python-ideas mailing list -- python-ideas at python.org
> > To unsubscribe send an email to python-ideas-leave at python.org
> > https://mail.python.org/mailman3/lists/python-ideas.python.org/
> > Message archived at
> https://mail.python.org/archives/list/python-ideas at python.org/message/XBR5QPXRBCCJELDVEWMKRBPTNG4SJM64/
> > Code of Conduct: http://python.org/psf/codeofconduct/
>