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Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.Suggestions cannot be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.
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.
nit: This seems like we'll end up breaking it when (eventually) electrum is async and we keep the stop signal for whatever reason but its running on the background task join set. I mean we'll notice quick cause all the stops will time out and fail in tests, but just seems weird to do this before initializing stopping another thing.
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.
Hmm, but
chain_source.stop()doesn't actually stop/abort any of the running blocking tasks. So it's preferable to wait for the chain syncing to stop (or worst case timeout) before callingchain_source.stop(), which drops access to the electrum client. But, we're gonna do more refactorings soon that will hopefully allow us to get rid of thechain_source.stop()concept entirely.