Fixed Bug where terminal not closing before moving on. #234
Conversation
This file contains 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
…e we move on. There are a few io.loops that are getting hit that we have to wait to close. The real solution is to implement a channel close or waitgroup in the readline library but this is a good alternitive
|
|
|
I was wrong. |
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
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Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.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.
This should fix the following:
#190
#180
This is not a you issue. The library readline has some problems with how they handle their close functionality.
On creation they setup a bunch of io.loops. (Seen in operations.go, std.go, readline.go)
When you call rl.close() it initiates a close on each of those items, but not all of them close in time before the return. (for whatever reason)
Thus causing missed prints to console because the console output is still not released. People have been doing a Println as an alternative, but this would fix it without needing that, and since it's at close and we're dealing with user input it won't cause excessive operation time.