Skip to content

Conversation

@InvalidInterrupt
Copy link
Contributor

@InvalidInterrupt InvalidInterrupt commented Sep 3, 2023

I believe this fixes #287.

The changes I've made to tests and setuptools automatic package discovery may be a little messy still.

@InvalidInterrupt InvalidInterrupt force-pushed the issue-287 branch 2 times, most recently from 1fdc1e9 to 56f87f9 Compare September 3, 2023 02:16
Additionally, allow the caller to disable the default listener on 127.0.0.1.
By detecting the address family rather than assuming AF_INET,
we allow unix domain sockets to be inherited properly.
Setuptools handled this fine but tox skips installing modules within
the top-level package
@carltongibson
Copy link
Member

Thanks for this @InvalidInterrupt. Just FYI I'll be a cycle or two to get to this, but have a couple of issues to pull together for a release.

@InvalidInterrupt
Copy link
Contributor Author

InvalidInterrupt commented Sep 5, 2023

A new utility package I added to the test dependencies seems not to advertise Python 3.7 support.
I wasn't confident adding a dependency was the right call in the first place. Let me know if there's a strong opinion on how to handle this, but for now I'm going to push a fixup commit where I monkeypatch an HttpConnection instance.

Eliminate dependency on httpunixsocketconnection; it does not declare
compatibility with Python 3.7.

Patching an HTTPConnection object like this is hackish, but may be good
enough for a test suite. I think it's pretty unlikely to lead to a false
negative.
@carltongibson
Copy link
Member

@InvalidInterrupt If you'd like, better would be to drop Python 3.7, which is EOL now. If you'd like to take that on (and related cleanups) in a separate PR that would be great, and speed me up 😅

@InvalidInterrupt
Copy link
Contributor Author

I can make a PR to remove 3.7 support, but I'm not exactly sure what other changes I should (or should not) make.

I'm inclined to keep the latest change regardless; I think this is less likely to result in trouble in the future. You can decide yourself once you have time to review it.

@carltongibson
Copy link
Member

OK, super thanks @InvalidInterrupt. I will get to this as soon as I can (but targeting a fall release for a new version)

If you wanted to glance over the other open PRs and comment, that's handy too, but no stress.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Labels

None yet

Projects

None yet

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

multiple daphne processes with supervisord and UNIX socket

2 participants