Skip to content

Fix serial runner cancellation #804

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

Merged
hiroshihorie merged 2 commits into from
Oct 6, 2025
Merged

Fix serial runner cancellation #804

Show file tree
Hide file tree
Changes from all commits
Commits
Show all changes
2 commits
Select commit Hold shift + click to select a range
fd4b1f2
fix
hiroshihorie Oct 3, 2025
00121cd
Change
pblazej Oct 6, 2025
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 .changes/serial-cancellation
View file
Open in desktop
Original file line number Diff line number Diff line change
@@ -0,0 +1 @@
patch type="fixed" "Serial operations cancellation semantics"
4 changes: 2 additions & 2 deletions Sources/LiveKit/Support/SerialRunnerActor.swift
View file
Open in desktop
Original file line number Diff line number Diff line change
Expand Up @@ -21,8 +21,8 @@ actor SerialRunnerActor<Value: Sendable> {

func run(block: @Sendable @escaping () async throws -> Value) async throws -> Value {
let task = Task { [previousTask] in
// Wait for the previous task to complete, but cancel it if needed
if let previousTask, !Task.isCancelled {
// Always wait for the previous task to maintain serial ordering
if let previousTask {
Copy link
Contributor

@pblazej pblazej Oct 3, 2025 •
edited
Loading

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

I'm just wondering what would happen if we move this wait before Task (essentially "blocking" run)?

Copy link
Contributor

@pblazej pblazej Oct 6, 2025

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

NVM, it just breaks the assumptions made in the 3rd test case 👍

// If previous task is still running, wait for it
_ = try? await previousTask.value
}
Expand Down
Loading