Skip to content
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.

Sign up for GitHub

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

[dogstatsd] sock.setblocking(0) for UDP socket #590

Merged
merged 2 commits into from
Jul 22, 2020
Merged

[dogstatsd] sock.setblocking(0) for UDP socket #590

Changes from 1 commit
Commits
Show all changes
2 commits
Select commit Hold shift + click to select a range
aa96b4f
[dogstatsd] sock.setblocking(0) for UDP socket
prognant Jul 13, 2020
6b3b54b
Consistency udp vs. af_unix
prognant Jul 15, 2020
File filter

Filter by extension

Filter by extension
Conversations
Failed to load comments.
Loading
Jump to
Jump to file
Failed to load files.
Loading
Diff view
Diff view
1 change: 1 addition & 0 deletions datadog/dogstatsd/base.py
View file
Open in desktop
Original file line number Diff line number Diff line change
Expand Up @@ -246,6 +246,7 @@ def get_socket(self):
self.socket = sock
else:
sock = socket.socket(socket.AF_INET, socket.SOCK_DGRAM)
sock.setblocking(0)
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

The order is different compared to the block above, where the blocking is set after connect.
I think your order is fine here, I'm more worried about the one above. But they should probably not be different?

Copy link
Contributor Author

@prognant prognant Jul 15, 2020 •
edited
Loading

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Indeed, I harmonised both cases, I did some test to ensure it does not break anything.

sock.connect((self.host, self.port))
self.socket = sock

Expand Down