Repository navigation
Provide a way for potentially long runtime difflib algorithms to be aborted by the caller (and report progress?) #69092
Description
| BPO | 24904 |
|---|---|
| Nosy | @tim-one, @rhettinger, @gpshead, @rbtcollins, @jftuga |
| Files |
Note: these values reflect the state of the issue at the time it was migrated and might not reflect the current state.
Show more details
GitHub fields:
assignee = None
closed_at = None
created_at = <Date 2015-08-20.22:18:07.911>
labels = ['type-feature', 'library']
title = 'Provide a way for potentially long runtime difflib algorithms to be aborted by the caller (and report progress?)'
updated_at = <Date 2022-02-07.13:36:55.864>
user = 'https://github.com/jftuga'bugs.python.org fields:
activity = <Date 2022-02-07.13:36:55.864>
actor = 'vstinner'
assignee = 'none'
closed = False
closed_date = None
closer = None
components = ['Library (Lib)']
creation = <Date 2015-08-20.22:18:07.911>
creator = 'jftuga'
dependencies = []
files = ['40217']
hgrepos = []
issue_num = 24904
keywords = ['patch']
message_count = 5.0
messages = ['248919', '248920', '248921', '248922', '412718']
nosy_count = 5.0
nosy_names = ['tim.peters', 'rhettinger', 'gregory.p.smith', 'rbcollins', 'jftuga']
pr_nums = []
priority = 'normal'
resolution = None
stage = 'needs patch'
status = 'open'
superseder = None
type = 'enhancement'
url = 'https://bugs.python.org/issue24904'
versions = ['Python 3.5']
Activity
jftuga commented on Aug 20, 2015
SequenceMatcher in the difflib module contain ratio() and quick_ratio() methods which can take a long time to run with certain input. One example is two slightly different versions of jquery.min.js.
I have written a patch against python-350b4 that adds a timeout to these methods. The new functionality also has the capability to "fall through" to the next quickest comparison method should a timeout occur. If a timeout does occur and using a fall through method is not desired, then -1 is returned for the ratio.
I'd like this to be incorporated into Python 3.5.0 if it is not too late.
vstinner commented on Aug 20, 2015
I'm not sure that it's a good idea to add a timeout to such algorithm. It can be very surprising to have a difference result depending on the system load (CPU usage of _other_ applications) and on the CPU performances.
If you really want this result, I would prefer to design the feature outside the Python stdlib. You might modify the stdlib to allow incremental computation.
About the patch itself, which kind of timer should be used? Monotonic clock? System clock? Process time (CPU time)?
Maybe we can optimize the code?
rhettinger commented on Aug 20, 2015
In general, it isn't good design to incorporate timeout logic in computation logic. What would be better is a general purpose, reusable, decoupled tool: run_with_time_limit(some_computation, some_args, time_limit). Such a tool might be based on separate process that can be timed or killed, it might use signals, or may be based on threading.Timer.
I did a quick look around the net. Timeouts on diff APIs aren't common (i.e GNU diff doesn't have a timeout) but there are a couple of precedents (you aren't the first to have had concerns about the running time for unfavorable inputs).
rbtcollins commented on Aug 20, 2015
So - I'm with Victor and Raymond here. I think modifying difflib to provide external control over the poor-O components would permit many more benefits than just controlling time: you could wrap them in a timer module to get what this patch does, you could replace them with alternative implementations (e.g. parallel ones).
gpshead commented on Feb 7, 2022
The way I'd go about this is to support some form of periodic checkpoint in the algorithm where it checks in with code supplied by the difflib user. Traditionally that'd have been via callbacks, there might be an async style way to express that these days. Those could indicate that they want the operation to be aborted. If it is possible to estimate progress, supplying that as input to the checkpoint API would be useful.
This leaves decision logic on when to abort something entirely up to the user rather than being clock based which is often not what the user wants.
I'm re-titling the issue as the original patch and proposal of a timeout isn't the direction several core devs have suggested we head.