Principles

Async function “flavors”

As you might recall from the discussion of async “sandwiches” in the Trio tutorial, every async function ultimately must do its useful work by directly or indirectly calling back into the same async library (such as asyncio or Trio) that’s managing the currently running event loop. If a function invoked within a trio.run() calls asyncio.sleep(), or a function invoked within an asyncio.run() calls trio.sleep(), the sleep function will send a message to the event loop that the event loop doesn’t know how to handle, and some sort of error will result.

In a program that uses trio-asyncio, you probably have some async functions implemented in terms of Trio calls and some implemented in terms of asyncio calls. In order to keep track of which is which, we’ll call these “Trio-flavored” and “asyncio-flavored” functions, respectively. It is critical that you understand which functions in your program are Trio-flavored and which are asyncio-flavored, just like it’s critical that you understand which functions are synchronous and which ones are async. Unfortunately, there’s no syntactic marker for flavor: both Trio-flavored and asyncio-flavored functions are defined with async def fn() and call other async functions with await other_fn(). You’ll have to keep track of it some other way. To help you out, every function in trio-asyncio documents its flavor, and we recommend that you follow this convention in your own programs too.

The general rules that determine flavor are as follows:

  • Every async function in the trio module is Trio-flavored. Every async function in the asyncio module is asyncio-flavored.
  • Flavor is transitive: if async function foo() calls await bar(), then foo() has bar()’s flavor. (If foo() calls await baz() too, then bar() and baz() had better have the same flavor.)
  • trio-asyncio gives you the ability to call functions whose flavor is different than your own, but you must be explicit about it. trio_asyncio.aio_as_trio() takes an asyncio-flavored function and returns a Trio-flavored wrapper for it; trio_as_aio() takes a Trio-flavored function and returns an asyncio-flavored wrapper for it.

If you don’t keep track of your function flavors correctly, you might get exceptions like the following:

  • If you call a Trio function where an asyncio function is expected: RuntimeError: Task got bad yield: followed by either WaitTaskRescheduled(abort_func=...) or <class 'trio._core._traps.CancelShieldedCheckpoint'>
  • If you call an asyncio function where a Trio function is expected: TypeError: trio.run received unrecognized yield message <Future ...>.

Other errors are possible too.

Flavor versus context

The concept of function flavor is distinct from the concept of “asyncio context” or “Trio context”. You’re in Trio context if you’re (indirectly) inside a call to trio.run(). You’re in asyncio context if asyncio.get_running_loop() returns a valid event loop. In a trio-asyncio program, you will frequently be in both Trio context and asyncio context at the same time, but each async function is either Trio-flavored or asyncio-flavored (not both).

Most synchronous asyncio or Trio functions (trio.Event.set(), asyncio.StreamWriter.close(), etc) only require you to be in asyncio or Trio context, and work equally well regardless of the flavor of function calling them. The exceptions are functions that access the current task (asyncio.current_task(), trio.lowlevel.current_task(), and anything that calls them), because there’s only a meaningful concept of the current foo task when a foo-flavored function is executing. For example, this means context managers that set a timeout on their body (with async_timeout.timeout(N):, with trio.move_on_after(N):) must be run from within the correct flavor of function.

Flavor transitions are explicit

As mentioned above, trio-asyncio does not generally allow you to transparently call await trio.something() from asyncio code, nor vice versa; you need to use aio_as_trio() or trio_as_aio() when calling a function whose flavor is different than yours. This is certainly more frustrating than having it “just work”. Unfortunately, semantic differences between Trio and asyncio (such as how to signal cancellation) need to be resolved at each boundary between asyncio and Trio, and we haven’t found a way to do this with acceptable performance and robustness unless those boundaries are marked.

If you insist on living on the wild side, trio-asyncio does provide allow_asyncio() which allows limited, experimental, and slow mixing of Trio-flavored and asyncio-flavored calls in the same Trio-flavored function.

trio-asyncio’s place in the asyncio stack

At its base, asyncio doesn’t know anything about futures or coroutines, nor does it have any concept of a task. All of these features are built on top of the simpler interfaces provided by the event loop. The event loop itself has little functionality beyond executing synchronous functions submitted with call_soon() and call_later() and invoking I/O availability callbacks registered using add_reader() and add_writer() at the appropriate times.

trio-asyncio provides an asyncio event loop implementation which performs these basic operations using Trio APIs. Everything else in asyncio (futures, tasks, cancellation, and so on) is ultimately implemented in terms of calls to event loop methods, and thus works “magically” with Trio once the trio-asyncio event loop is installed. This strategy provides a high level of compatibility with asyncio libraries, but it also means that asyncio-flavored code running under trio-asyncio doesn’t benefit much from Trio’s more structured approach to concurrent programming: cancellation, causality, and exception propagation in asyncio-flavored code are just as error-prone under trio-asyncio as they are under the default asyncio event loop. (Of course, your Trio-flavored code will still benefit from all the usual Trio guarantees.)

If you look at a Trio task tree, you’ll see only one Trio task for the entire asyncio event loop. The distinctions between different asyncio tasks are erased, because they’ve all been merged into a single pot of callback soup by the time they get to trio-asyncio. Similarly, context variables will only work properly in asyncio-flavored code when running Python 3.7 or later (where they’re supported natively), even though Trio supports them on earlier Pythons using a backport package.

Event loop implementations

A stock asyncio event loop may be interrupted and restarted at any time, simply by making repeated calls to run_until_complete(). Trio, however, requires one long-running main loop. trio-asyncio bridges this gap by providing two event loop implementations.

  • The preferred option is to use an “async loop”: inside a Trio-flavored async function, write async with trio_asyncio.open_loop() as loop:. Within the async with block (and anything it calls, and any tasks it starts, and so on), asyncio.get_event_loop() and asyncio.get_running_loop() will return loop. You can’t manually start and stop an async loop. Instead, it starts when you enter the async with block and stops when you exit the block.
  • The other option is a “sync loop”. If you’ve imported trio-asyncio but aren’t in Trio context, and you haven’t installed a custom event loop policy, calling asyncio.new_event_loop() (including the implicit call made by the first asyncio.get_event_loop() in the main thread) will give you an event loop that transparently runs in a separate thread in order to support multiple calls to run_until_complete(), run_forever(), and stop(). Sync loops are intended to allow trio-asyncio to run the existing test suites of large asyncio libraries, which often call run_until_complete() on the same loop multiple times. Using them for other purposes is deprecated.