Issue #20081 has been updated by rmosolgo (Robert Mosolgo). I see that Ruby 3.3 has `Fiber#kill` coming (https://github.com/ruby/ruby/pull/7823), which I _think_ will solve my problem: I can manually `.kill` Fibers instead of running them until they return. But still, I'm interested to learn whether this is a bug or not! ---------------------------------------- Bug #20081: Transfered Fiber doesn't return to Fiber that started it https://bugs.ruby-lang.org/issues/20081#change-105836 * Author: rmosolgo (Robert Mosolgo) * Status: Open * Priority: Normal * ruby -v: ruby 3.2.2 (2023-03-30 revision e51014f9c0) [x86_64-darwin22] * Backport: 3.0: UNKNOWN, 3.1: UNKNOWN, 3.2: UNKNOWN ---------------------------------------- Hi! I'm trying to figure out how to make sure that Fibers started with `.transfer` end up _terminated_, not just suspended. (If they're suspended, Rails thinks they're still alive, and they continue to hold onto database connections, see: https://github.com/rmosolgo/graphql-ruby/issues/4739#issuecomment-1866930914.) So, I'm looking for way to make sure that any Fiber I start with `.transfer` will be properly terminated. But what I noticed is that when a transfer-based Fiber terminates, it gives control back to the top-most Fiber, not the Fiber which transfered to it. Is this intended? Here's a script to replicate the issue: ```ruby manager = Fiber.new do parent = Fiber.current worker = Fiber.new do puts "2. Begin Worker" parent.transfer puts "4. End Worker" end puts "1. Transfer 1" worker.transfer puts "3. Transfer 2" worker.transfer puts "5. Finished manager" end manager.transfer puts "6. Finished script" ``` I expect the steps to print in order: ``` 1. Transfer 1 2. Begin Worker 3. Transfer 2 4. End Worker 5. Finished manager 6. Finished script ``` But instead, `5. ...` is skipped: ``` 1. Transfer 1 2. Begin Worker 3. Transfer 2 4. End Worker 6. Finished script ``` I think that's because my `worker` fiber terminates and passes control back to the top-level Fiber. Should it have passed control back to the `manager`? Or is there another way to make sure `worker` is terminated, and `manager` gets control? -- https://bugs.ruby-lang.org/