…GH-111336)

* Try to fix asyncio.Server.wait_closed() again

I identified the condition that `wait_closed()` is intended
to wait for: the server is closed *and* there are no more
active connections.

When this condition first becomes true, `_wakeup()` is called
(either from `close()` or from `_detach()`) and it sets `_waiters`
to `None`. So we just check for `self._waiters is None`; if it's
not `None`, we know we have to wait, and do so.

A problem was that the new test introduced in 3.12 explicitly
tested that `wait_closed()` returns immediately when the server
is *not* closed but there are currently no active connections.
This was a mistake (probably a misunderstanding of the intended
semantics). I've fixed the test, and added a separate test that
checks exactly for this scenario.

I also fixed an oddity where in `_wakeup()` the result of the
waiter was set to the waiter itself. This result is not used
anywhere and I changed this to `None`, to avoid a GC cycle.

* Update Lib/asyncio/base_events.py

---------

(cherry picked from commit 2655369)

Co-authored-by: Guido van Rossum <guido@python.org>
Co-authored-by: Carol Willing <carolcode@willingconsulting.com>

…1336) (#111424)

gh-79033: Try to fix asyncio.Server.wait_closed() again (GH-111336)

* Try to fix asyncio.Server.wait_closed() again

I identified the condition that `wait_closed()` is intended
to wait for: the server is closed *and* there are no more
active connections.

When this condition first becomes true, `_wakeup()` is called
(either from `close()` or from `_detach()`) and it sets `_waiters`
to `None`. So we just check for `self._waiters is None`; if it's
not `None`, we know we have to wait, and do so.

A problem was that the new test introduced in 3.12 explicitly
tested that `wait_closed()` returns immediately when the server
is *not* closed but there are currently no active connections.
This was a mistake (probably a misunderstanding of the intended
semantics). I've fixed the test, and added a separate test that
checks exactly for this scenario.

I also fixed an oddity where in `_wakeup()` the result of the
waiter was set to the waiter itself. This result is not used
anywhere and I changed this to `None`, to avoid a GC cycle.

* Update Lib/asyncio/base_events.py

---------

(cherry picked from commit 2655369)

Co-authored-by: Guido van Rossum <guido@python.org>
Co-authored-by: Carol Willing <carolcode@willingconsulting.com>

…GH-111336)

* Try to fix asyncio.Server.wait_closed() again

I identified the condition that `wait_closed()` is intended
to wait for: the server is closed *and* there are no more
active connections.

When this condition first becomes true, `_wakeup()` is called
(either from `close()` or from `_detach()`) and it sets `_waiters`
to `None`. So we just check for `self._waiters is None`; if it's
not `None`, we know we have to wait, and do so.

A problem was that the new test introduced in 3.12 explicitly
tested that `wait_closed()` returns immediately when the server
is *not* closed but there are currently no active connections.
This was a mistake (probably a misunderstanding of the intended
semantics). I've fixed the test, and added a separate test that
checks exactly for this scenario.

I also fixed an oddity where in `_wakeup()` the result of the
waiter was set to the waiter itself. This result is not used
anywhere and I changed this to `None`, to avoid a GC cycle.

* Update Lib/asyncio/base_events.py

---------

Co-authored-by: Carol Willing <carolcode@willingconsulting.com>

…GH-111336)

* Try to fix asyncio.Server.wait_closed() again

I identified the condition that `wait_closed()` is intended
to wait for: the server is closed *and* there are no more
active connections.

When this condition first becomes true, `_wakeup()` is called
(either from `close()` or from `_detach()`) and it sets `_waiters`
to `None`. So we just check for `self._waiters is None`; if it's
not `None`, we know we have to wait, and do so.

A problem was that the new test introduced in 3.12 explicitly
tested that `wait_closed()` returns immediately when the server
is *not* closed but there are currently no active connections.
This was a mistake (probably a misunderstanding of the intended
semantics). I've fixed the test, and added a separate test that
checks exactly for this scenario.

I also fixed an oddity where in `_wakeup()` the result of the
waiter was set to the waiter itself. This result is not used
anywhere and I changed this to `None`, to avoid a GC cycle.

* Update Lib/asyncio/base_events.py

---------

Co-authored-by: Carol Willing <carolcode@willingconsulting.com>

…GH-111336)

* Try to fix asyncio.Server.wait_closed() again

I identified the condition that `wait_closed()` is intended
to wait for: the server is closed *and* there are no more
active connections.

When this condition first becomes true, `_wakeup()` is called
(either from `close()` or from `_detach()`) and it sets `_waiters`
to `None`. So we just check for `self._waiters is None`; if it's
not `None`, we know we have to wait, and do so.

A problem was that the new test introduced in 3.12 explicitly
tested that `wait_closed()` returns immediately when the server
is *not* closed but there are currently no active connections.
This was a mistake (probably a misunderstanding of the intended
semantics). I've fixed the test, and added a separate test that
checks exactly for this scenario.

I also fixed an oddity where in `_wakeup()` the result of the
waiter was set to the waiter itself. This result is not used
anywhere and I changed this to `None`, to avoid a GC cycle.

* Update Lib/asyncio/base_events.py

---------

Co-authored-by: Carol Willing <carolcode@willingconsulting.com>

According to python/cpython#111336, asyncio.Server.wait_closed is intended to wait for: the server is closed and there are no more active connections.
It should not wait for connections to finish when closing the adb reverse tunnel, so do not call wait_closed.

Signed-off-by: PeterD1524 <qaz246135@gmail.com>