-
-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 5.6k
Add docstring to ConcurrencyViolationError
#53733
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
Add docstring to ConcurrencyViolationError
#53733
Conversation
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Should we add this to the docs/src files also?
Co-authored-by: Jameson Nash <[email protected]>
What is recorded in those files? |
The source for the https://docs.julialang.org/en/v1/ pages |
I think it'd be good to have a dedicated "You're doing something weird with concurrency; if you see this error you most likely have a bug in your code" error, so yeah, having that listed there sounds good. I'll add it. Is there a specific section it should be listed in? |
Multithreading maybe? |
I'm not sure it's worth adding a whole big paragraph of prose though :/ If this were a personal project, I'd just have it in a reference list (kinda like here, except it'd only contain multi-threading related docstrings). It's not like there are big examples necessary for how to use it. We don't really have those kinds of section-specific lists in the manual, unfortunately. |
Alright, I've added a short blurb to the section on data races, which seemed like the most appropriate place |
Failures are due to not having a canonical place for the docstring- |
Those seem to be split between docs/src/base/multi-threading.md and docs/src/base/parallel.md, with probably a preference towards the former for this, though either seems acceptable. |
Ok, I've added it to |
Failures seem unrelated, so should be good to merge if the addition to the docs is ok. |
Should we merge? |
Like I said in May, if the failure is unrelated (and it seems like it is) and folks are fine with the wording, yes. It's just a doc change. |
This should cover the current usecases of this error.