gh-120144: Refactor bdb monitoring backend to match settrace behavior - #132484
Merged
gaogaotiantian merged 1 commit intoApr 13, 2025
Merged
gh-120144: Refactor bdb monitoring backend to match settrace behavior#132484gaogaotiantian merged 1 commit into
gaogaotiantian merged 1 commit into
Conversation
Copy link
Copy Markdown
Member
Sorry, something went wrong.
Copy link
Copy Markdown
Member
Author
|
Hi @iritkatriel , this PR basically just make it clearer how the monitoring backend behavior matches the settrace bahavior, while fixing a small bug. Hope it won't be too much work to review :) |
Sorry, something went wrong.
iritkatriel
approved these changes
Apr 13, 2025
Copy link
Copy Markdown
Member
Author
|
Wow that was fast! Thanks! |
Sorry, something went wrong.
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
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Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.Suggestions cannot be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.
The existing behavior of bdb's monitoring backend does not fully match what sys.settrace does. The update for opcode events is separated from the other local events, which does not quite make sense.
This PR unifies the event handling - update_local_events() will simply check f_trace and f_trace_opcode to decide what events should be enabled for that code object.
This actually cleans up the logic for the monitoring backend.
The check_trace_opcodes() is removed from stop_trace() because clear_id does the work.
There was a small bug in the original code - check_trace_opcodes will actually erase the work check_trace_func does. It did not matter because we always do start_trace() when we start trace and we are only interested in opcode events. However, theoretically it's still wrong. Now it has the correct behavior.
This is not really "user observable", so it should be considered as a refactoring. (However it blocks something I'm working on for async stuff).