Replaced get_event_loop() with get_running_loop()#12425
Draft
agronholm wants to merge 3 commits intoaio-libs:masterfrom
Draft
Replaced get_event_loop() with get_running_loop()#12425agronholm wants to merge 3 commits intoaio-libs:masterfrom
get_event_loop() with get_running_loop()#12425agronholm wants to merge 3 commits intoaio-libs:masterfrom
Conversation
psf-chronographer
Bot
added
the
bot:chronographer:provided
❌ 4 Tests Failed:
View the top 2 failed test(s) by shortest run time
View the full list of 2 ❄️ flaky test(s)
To view more test analytics, go to the Test Analytics Dashboard |
Merging this PR will not alter performance
Comparing 
Footnotes
|
Member
|
We should do this. I did a few of them previously. Be aware there was pushback when we did some of the others #8555 |
Contributor
Author
|
I'm seeing test failures, but most of them seem to be about testing the test harness itself. |
Member
|
test failure in https://github.com/aio-libs/aiohttp/actions/runs/24991218031/job/73177192738?pr=12425 are because the CI is relying on the loop being created by the legacy |
webknjaz
added
backport-3.13
Member
|
@bdraco do you think this can be considered backportable given that it's not an API change? I've added the labels ahead of time, for now. |
Member
|
back port it. There may be some complaints but its past time to get this done and we can't punt on it any longer. |
Contributor
Author
|
Is the consensus then that I need to make another PR to resolve the failures seen here? |
Dreamsorcerer
removed
the
backport-3.13
Member
|
I think you can just do them here. |
Comment on lines
241
to
243
| # Setup uvloop policy, so that every | ||
| # asyncio.get_event_loop() will create an instance | ||
| # asyncio.get_running_loop() will create an instance | ||
| # of uvloop event loop. |
Member
There was a problem hiding this comment.
This comment isn't exactly correct, and I think it's fairly obvious what the code does, so let's just delete this comment.
Contributor
Author
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Right – I did a fairly simple search/replace operation and missed this nuance.
Dreamsorcerer
approved these changes
Apr 27, 2026
Member
Only case I see here that could cause the same problem is in NamedPipeSite, which is a rare thing for users. So, probably won't get any more complaints on this one. Though maybe there's some other way of implementing that check...? |
Member
A site is generally created after a runner has been setup, so it's also very unlikely to be called in a situation without a running loop: |
Contributor
Author
|
I just noticed that |
Member
|
It still has odd behaviour and is discouraged. |
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
4 participants
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.
What do these changes do?
This is a search & replace operation that changes all uses of the
get_event_loop()function toget_running_loop().Are there changes in behavior for the user?
No
Is it a substantial burden for the maintainers to support this?
Nope
Related issue number
Checklist
CONTRIBUTORS.txtCHANGES/foldername it
<issue_or_pr_num>.<type>.rst(e.g.588.bugfix.rst)if you don't have an issue number, change it to the pull request
number after creating the PR
.bugfix: A bug fix for something the maintainers deemed animproper undesired behavior that got corrected to match
pre-agreed expectations.
.feature: A new behavior, public APIs. That sort of stuff..deprecation: A declaration of future API removals and breakingchanges in behavior.
.breaking: When something public is removed in a breaking way.Could be deprecated in an earlier release.
.doc: Notable updates to the documentation structure or buildprocess.
.packaging: Notes for downstreams about unobvious side effectsand tooling. Changes in the test invocation considerations and
runtime assumptions.
.contrib: Stuff that affects the contributor experience. e.g.Running tests, building the docs, setting up the development
environment.
.misc: Changes that are hard to assign to any of the abovecategories.
Make sure to use full sentences with correct case and punctuation,
for example:
Use the past tense or the present tense a non-imperative mood,
referring to what's changed compared to the last released version
of this project.