Polymorphic Future await? #757
Closed
+79
−25
Conversation
This file contains hidden or 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
Previously if on the tokio event loop we forced our internal uses to directly await the PythonTask. This leads to a few places where we end up with a Future but want to await it from a coro alos on the tokio event loop. We have the option of making __await__ work in either case: on a asyncio loop createa. python future, on a tokio loop spawn/await. If we want consumers to create Future objects themselves we probably want this. If we want tokio event loop things to be an implementation detail of monarch, we probably do not want this. Differential Revision: [D79596925](https://our.internmc.facebook.com/intern/diff/D79596925/) **NOTE FOR REVIEWERS**: This PR has internal Meta-specific changes or comments, please review them on [Phabricator](https://our.internmc.facebook.com/intern/diff/D79596925/)! [ghstack-poisoned]
This was referenced Aug 4, 2025
meta-cla
bot
added
the
CLA Signed
zdevito
added a commit
that referenced
this pull request
Aug 4, 2025
Previously if on the tokio event loop we forced our internal uses to directly await the PythonTask. This leads to a few places where we end up with a Future but want to await it from a coro alos on the tokio event loop. We have the option of making __await__ work in either case: on a asyncio loop createa. python future, on a tokio loop spawn/await. If we want consumers to create Future objects themselves we probably want this. If we want tokio event loop things to be an implementation detail of monarch, we probably do not want this. Differential Revision: [D79596925](https://our.internmc.facebook.com/intern/diff/D79596925/) **NOTE FOR REVIEWERS**: This PR has internal Meta-specific changes or comments, please review them on [Phabricator](https://our.internmc.facebook.com/intern/diff/D79596925/)! ghstack-source-id: 300662990 Pull Request resolved: #757
|
This pull request was exported from Phabricator. Differential Revision: D79596925 |
Previously if on the tokio event loop we forced our internal uses to directly await the PythonTask. This leads to a few places where we end up with a Future but want to await it from a coro alos on the tokio event loop. We have the option of making __await__ work in either case: on a asyncio loop createa. python future, on a tokio loop spawn/await. If we want consumers to create Future objects themselves we probably want this. If we want tokio event loop things to be an implementation detail of monarch, we probably do not want this. Differential Revision: [D79596925](https://our.internmc.facebook.com/intern/diff/D79596925/) **NOTE FOR REVIEWERS**: This PR has internal Meta-specific changes or comments, please review them on [Phabricator](https://our.internmc.facebook.com/intern/diff/D79596925/)! [ghstack-poisoned]
zdevito
added a commit
that referenced
this pull request
Aug 5, 2025
Pull Request resolved: #757 Previously if on the tokio event loop we forced our internal uses to directly await the PythonTask. This leads to a few places where we end up with a Future but want to await it from a coro also on the tokio event loop. We have the option of making `__await__` work in either case: on a asyncio loop, create a python future, on a tokio loop spawn/await. If we want consumers to create Future objects themselves we probably want this. If we want tokio event loop things to be an implementation detail of monarch, we probably do not want this. Differential Revision: [D79596925](https://our.internmc.facebook.com/intern/diff/D79596925/) **NOTE FOR REVIEWERS**: This PR has internal Meta-specific changes or comments, please review them on [Phabricator](https://our.internmc.facebook.com/intern/diff/D79596925/)! ghstack-source-id: 300750788
|
This pull request was exported from Phabricator. Differential Revision: D79596925 |
|
This pull request has been merged in 694951b. |
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.
Stack from ghstack (oldest at bottom):
Previously if on the tokio event loop we forced our internal uses to directly await the PythonTask. This leads to a few places where we end up with a Future but want to await it from a coro alos on the tokio event loop.
We have the option of making await work in either case: on a asyncio loop createa. python future, on a tokio loop spawn/await.
If we want consumers to create Future objects themselves we probably want this. If we want tokio event loop things to be an implementation detail of monarch, we probably do not want this.
Differential Revision: D79596925
NOTE FOR REVIEWERS: This PR has internal Meta-specific changes or comments, please review them on Phabricator!