`interruptWhen` and friends shouldn't cancel downstream processing
Open
Nobody has claimed this yet.
bug
- Dominant language
- Scala
- Stars
- 2.5k
- Forks
- 636
- Avg merge
- 2d 4h
- Merged PRs (30d)
- 7
Description
Stream(1,2).covary[IO].interruptAfter(200.millis).evalMap( i =>
IO.println(i).delayBy(300.millis).onCancel(IO.println("CANCELED"))
).compile.drain.unsafeRunSync()
This program prints CANCELED even though this is happening downstream from interruptAfter.
Only canceling upstream would give more control to the clients of this stream.
Contributor guide
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 by reproducing the Scala example with interruptAfter, evalMap, and the delayed onCancel handler, then inspect the cancellation behavior of interruptWhen and related operators. Done means interrupting the stream cancels upstream processing without triggering cancellation in downstream processing.
Written by the indexing model from the issue text.
Assessment
- Tech stack
- scala
- Domain
- stream-processing
- Issue type
- Bug
- Difficulty
- 4/5
- Estimated time
- 3-5 days
- Activity status
- Stale
- Clarity
- Mostly clear
- Newbie friendliness
- 35/100