Uh oh!
There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.
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Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.Suggestions cannot be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.
CopilotAIMar 9, 2026
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Catching AttributeError unconditionally here can mask real runtime failures when
_terminate()is called outside interpreter shutdown (e.g. thekill_after_timeoutpath inhandle_process_output). Consider only suppressing AttributeError during interpreter finalization (e.g.getattr(sys, "is_finalizing", lambda: False)()), and otherwise re-raising so unexpected terminate/wait breakages don’t silently leave processes running. Also, the comment says “silently ignore” but this logs at INFO—either adjust the wording or log level to match intent.There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
There may be some merit to this concern, but I don't think it needs to block the change here, since
AttributeErrorreally should not arise here in any other way. I'm also not entirely sure that a change along the lines of what the model suggests here would be robust enough to be worth doing. But probably some future change to make this more robust, or do log in more detail when the capability to do so is present, or both, could be worthwhile. (I reiterate that I don't consider this blocking.)