Issue #20081 has been updated by ioquatix (Samuel Williams). Actually, this behaviour isn't as bad as I thought it was: ``` f1 = Fiber.new do f2 = Fiber.new do puts "f2" end.transfer puts "f1" end.resume f2 f1 ``` I thought f2 would transfer back out to the main fiber, but it goes back to the nested resumed fiber. ---------------------------------------- Bug #20081: Transfered Fiber doesn't return to Fiber that started it https://bugs.ruby-lang.org/issues/20081#change-117841 * Author: rmosolgo (Robert Mosolgo) * Status: Open * 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/