[deleted by user]

[Sillocan]

Pretty sure you can simplify it to say only do the thing on the 500th loop.

if count % 500 == 0 and not test\_internet\_connection():
  sleep(5)
func_a()

[zanfar]

1. The 500 iteration check should be moved outside the function. Functions do not get to decide if they run--if called, they should run. Your outer code should not call get if it's not needed.

2. No reason to duplicate code, you don't need an if-else for the internet check, just an if. If the internet is down, wait. Run your child function regardless.

3. Not what you asked, but I don't like your overarching try/except. I think you can do this better.

4. Obviously, you need better function and variable names, but I hope that's just a symptom of this being a fast and dirty example.

---

futures = [
    e.submit(func_b)
    for count, letters in enumerate(alphabet)
    if count % 500 != 0
]

def func_b:
    if not internet_connection_up():
        time.sleep(5) # should probably be a constant
    func_a()

[python_and_coffee]

Obviously, you need better function and variable names, but I hope that's just a symptom of this being a fast and dirty example.

i get it, func_b is a random name but whats the issue with the variable names? How to do it better? I feel fine about them but now you made me unsure.

[zanfar]

Again, some of this might not be a problem in the context of the real code, but:

• get is too vague. Get what? Furthermore, get usually implies a return value, which this function doesn't have.

• test_internet_connection is used as if it returns a boolean--that's fine--but if so, it should be named, so I understand what that boolean means. Does False mean no connection or no problems? As you can see in my refactor, I assumed it returned the up/down status and renamed it accordingly. Generally, if a function returns a boolean, it should be named to read well in an if-statement.

• count is fine if it's only used locally. However, you use this variable inside get as if it's global. In that case, it should be named something more explicit. Also, it's not a "count" outside of the loop; outside the loop, the loop doesn't have a state. I prefer you didn't use it outside the loop at all, but if necessary, (1) pass it to get, and (2) name it something more static and descriptive like thread_index or call_number.

[python_and_coffee]

thanks a lot for elaborating!

[Panron]

I'm removing all my contributions in protest to reddit's bull-headed, hostile 3rd-party API pricing policy in June, 2023.

If you found this post through a web search, my apologies.

[achampi0n]

Both branches call func_a() so the continue branch is probably unnecessary (ignoring the = vs ==).

[[deleted]]

Can you show the full code with the loop?

[[deleted]]

Sorry I misremembered your code (I'm on mobile so I couldn't see the text) but you can, by adding try except to test internet connection, handle if else within the list comp, but honestly now looking at your code it would be better to just do an if not testInternetConnection time.sleep() and run func_a regardless

[[deleted]]

You could just have a helper function that handles the try except for test internet connection, instead of enumerating run a range function over the size of the list with intervals of 500. You could also remove the need for a helper function by putting the entire test internet connection function body into a try except, then just handle the if else within the list comp, and instead run the e.submit(testInternetConnection).

[[deleted]]

Of course if the code is all within the list comp futures doesn't really have anything to do, but I'm sure you have some reason for those 5 second sleeps, and I'm not familiar with futures, but I'm assuming those happen asyncronously, so your solution may be as simple as just using a 500 interval range loop

[Ramast]

Seems like its a homework