Codemod to fix asyncio.Task

[clavedeluna]

Overview

Replace manual init of asyncio.Task with create_task

Description

• special case of loop=not-a-loop in which I left without changes, I can update accordingly if we do want to change it.

[andrecsilva]

Just a small correction on converting tasks with eager_start parameter.

[andrecsilva]

This changes the intended behavior of the code. The eager_start argument has seemingly no effect on create_task.

I think the ayncio.eager_task_factory is the intended way to create eager tasks.
https://docs.python.org/3/library/asyncio-task.html#eager-task-factory

[clavedeluna]

ah interesting. I only used eager_task as a kwarg test example to demonstrate we correctly handle kwargs. I'll see if I use another kwarg or if we need to special case for eager_task

[clavedeluna]

@andrecsilva could you double check my understanding of the docs, since it's a tiny bit confusing. Seems like eager_start is new so not a ton of use cases yet out there.

So if I understand correctly, if you want to create a Task() with eager_start=True, the code would be

loop = asyncio.get_running_loop()
task = asyncio.Task(my_coroutine(), loop=loop, eager_start=True)

(must pass in a loop otherwise it won't work)

Our replacement could either be

  loop = asyncio.get_running_loop()
  loop.set_task_factory(asyncio.eager_task_factory)
  task = loop.create_task(my_coroutine())

which is kinda what the docs suggest? but this also works:

  loop = asyncio.get_running_loop()
  task = asyncio.eager_task_factory(loop, my_coroutine())

though I"m not 100% sure they're totally equivalent.

I'm a tiny bit leaning to not support this right now if we aren't sure, but maybe I'm missing something today.

[andrecsilva]

That is also my understanding from reading the documentation.

[drdavella]

I've asked @bdoyal to take a look at the test cases just as another sanity check to make sure we're producing correct code.

[drdavella]

This is a very nice codemod overall. I agree with @andrecsilva that it looks like we need to handle eager tasks slightly differently. Hopefully that's not too difficult. Also I requested some small changes to the metadata.

[drdavella]

Suggested change

	summary="Use high-level `asyncio.create_task` API",
	summary="Use `asyncio.create_task` API to instantiate `asyncio.Task`",

[clavedeluna]

@drdavella I don't think we should use your exact summary wording bc the codemod may change to not only asyncio.create_task, but also to some_loop.create_task and now to asyncio.eager_task_factory which is why I just said high-level API.

[drdavella]

How about Use high-level asyncio APIs to instantiate tasks?

Also I think our convention is to use title case for the summary.

[drdavella]

Nvm you basically did that already. I didn't even notice 🤦

[bdoyal]

@drdavella asked me to take a look at the aysnc inputs/outputs in one of the test files, so I'm just here to leave comments on that.

[clavedeluna]

latest commits add support for eager_task. this is a new feature in py3.12 and the docs are a bit confusing and there aren't a lot of examples online, so hopefully I got it right.

[drdavella]

Just asking for one more very minor change but otherwise looks 👍

[drdavella]

Suggested change

	change_description = "Replace instantiation of `asyncio.Task` higher-level functions to create tasks."
	change_description = "Replace instantiation of `asyncio.Task` with higher-level functions to create tasks."

[sonarqubecloud]

Quality Gate passed

Issues
0 New issues

Measures
0 Security Hotspots
No data about Coverage
0.0% Duplication on New Code

See analysis details on SonarCloud