fix(core): prefer use of time.monotonic
#742
Merged
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
ceache
approved these changes
Feb 6, 2024
jeffwidman
approved these changes
Feb 6, 2024
`time.time()` is subject to change sin system local time and can trigger unexpected behaviour. Prefer the use of `time.monotonic` instead of `time.time` since we are not making use of the actual time, only an amount of time elapsed. Fixes #722
StephenSorriaux
force-pushed
the
fix/use-of-time
branch
from
6a60139
to
28819e0
Compare
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Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.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.
Fixes #722
Why is this needed?
time.time()is subject to changes in system local time and can trigger unexpected behavior. Prefer the use oftime.monotonicinstead oftime.timesince we are not making use of the actual time, only an amount of time elapsed.Proposed Changes
time.time()withtime.monotonic()Does this PR introduce any breaking change?
No