Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

NOTICE: plan(multiprocess) of future is deprecated #160

Closed
Tracked by #546
HenrikBengtsson opened this issue Oct 19, 2021 · 1 comment · Fixed by #159
Closed
Tracked by #546

NOTICE: plan(multiprocess) of future is deprecated #160

HenrikBengtsson opened this issue Oct 19, 2021 · 1 comment · Fixed by #159

Comments

@HenrikBengtsson
Copy link

Hi.

This is a friendly reminder that plan(multiprocess) of the future package is deprecated since future 1.20.0 (2020-11-03). It will eventually become defunct and removed. The background for this can be found in futureverse/future#420.

Your protti package relies on multiprocess, cf. https://github.com/jpquast/protti/search?q=multiprocess.

Please migrate your code to the platform-independent plan(multisession) or the Linux/macOS-specific plan(multicore). If you want to emulate what multiprocess does, you can do something like:

  if (parallelly::supportsMulticore()) {
    oplan <- plan(multicore)
  } else {
    oplan <- plan(multisession)
  }
  on.exit(plan(oplan))

BTW, if you don't already do so, please make sure to undo any plan() you set in your code, as illustrated by the above example. This is needed to guarantee that calling your code won't override settings that the user has set previously. You can read about this in https://future.futureverse.org/reference/plan.html#for-package-developers.

Thank you,

Henrik
(maintainer of the future package)

jpquast added a commit that referenced this issue Oct 20, 2021
update of ubuntu tests on github actions to ubuntu 18.04
@jpquast jpquast linked a pull request Oct 20, 2021 that will close this issue
@jpquast
Copy link
Owner

jpquast commented Jan 11, 2022

Thank you for the heads up!
This has been resolved in pull request #161.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging a pull request may close this issue.

2 participants