Revisit pool.destroy logic
Nobody has claimed this yet.
- Dominant language
- TypeScript
- Stars
- 21
- Forks
- 23
- Avg merge
- 1d 22h
- Merged PRs (30d)
- 17
Description
The test destroy should close all child processes is flaky, so I've skipped it. Looking at the logic I'm not convinced it's doing what I think it's doing.
I don't that immediate exit is working properly. I would like to test this better and maybe refactor.
I'm not enjoying the killWorkerand waitForWorker to finish functions. I'd just like one killWorker function with optional timeout, which can be awaited.
A final cocern: looking back I'm confused about the difference between pool and allWorkers. Why do we need both? Something about workers coming out of the pool while active... I don't know.
I'd just like to revisit this later with a full brain,
Contributor guide
No contributing guide indexed for this repository
First steps
- Read the whole issue, then the project's contributing guide.
- Comment on the issue to say you are picking it up — it saves two people doing the same work.
- Fork the repository and make your change on a branch.
- Open a pull request that references the issue number.
Research direction
Start with the skipped test, destroy should close all child processes, then trace pool.destroy, killWorker, and waitForWorker to understand immediate exit and the roles of pool and allWorkers. Done means the worker shutdown behavior is reliably tested and the lifecycle API and relationship between these collections are clarified, with any refactor agreed from that investigation.
Written by the indexing model from the issue text.
Assessment
- Tech stack
- typescript
- Domain
- backend
- Issue type
- Bug
- Difficulty
- 5/5
- Estimated time
- Over a week
- Activity status
- Stale
- Clarity
- Needs clarification
- Newbie friendliness
- 25/100