Description
In nettacker/core/utils/common.py (lines 58-75), wait_for_threads_to_finish modifies the threads list while iterating over it:
def wait_for_threads_to_finish(threads, maximum=None, terminable=False, sub_process=False):
while threads:
try:
for thread in threads:
if not thread.is_alive():
threads.remove(thread)When threads.remove(thread) is called inside the for thread in threads loop, the iterator shifts and the next element is skipped. For example, if threads at indices 2 and 3 both finish, removing index 2 shifts index 3 to index 2, but the iterator moves to index 3, skipping what was originally thread 3.
Impact
- Some finished threads may not be removed from the list promptly (they get picked up in the next
while iteration, adding unnecessary delay)
- In edge cases with the
maximum parameter, the thread count check on line 64 may be inaccurate because not all finished threads were removed
Suggested fix
Build a new list instead of modifying during iteration:
while threads:
try:
threads = [t for t in threads if t.is_alive()]
if maximum and len(threads) < maximum:
break
time.sleep(0.01)Or iterate over a copy:
for thread in threads[:]: # iterate over a copy
if not thread.is_alive():
threads.remove(thread)
Description
In
nettacker/core/utils/common.py(lines 58-75),wait_for_threads_to_finishmodifies thethreadslist while iterating over it:When
threads.remove(thread)is called inside thefor thread in threadsloop, the iterator shifts and the next element is skipped. For example, if threads at indices 2 and 3 both finish, removing index 2 shifts index 3 to index 2, but the iterator moves to index 3, skipping what was originally thread 3.Impact
whileiteration, adding unnecessary delay)maximumparameter, the thread count check on line 64 may be inaccurate because not all finished threads were removedSuggested fix
Build a new list instead of modifying during iteration:
Or iterate over a copy: