docker: refactor PullImage future handling #24992
Merged
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
gulducat
added
theme/driver/docker
backport/1.9.x
6 tasks
Merged
6 tasks
gulducat
force-pushed
the
b-docker-image_pull_timeout
branch
from
29ce922 to
cd7694f
Compare
at least one bug has been created because it's easy to miss a future.set() in pullImageImpl() this pulls future.set() out to PullImage(), the same level where it's created and wait()ed
gulducat
force-pushed
the
docker-easier-future
branch
from
ab256a1 to
b1927ee
Compare
mismithhisler
approved these changes
Feb 7, 2025
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Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.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.
PR #24981 fixes a bug that I think this would have prevented.
Instead of requiring humans understand/remember that within
pullImageImpl(), eachreturnneeds an associatedfuture.set(), thisset()s in the outer scope where the future is created andwait()ed on. So nowpullImageImpl()can be a simple normal function without needing to worry about anyfuturebusiness.No new tests needed for this. At least most of the relevant code paths are covered by existing tests (including some added in PR #24991, which this builds upon), so the overall contract for
PullImage()is intact.