Add worker name as prefix to ThreadPoolExecutor name

[maneesh29s]

Closes #9112

• Tests added / passed
• Passes pre-commit run --all-files

Here I have implemented one of the proposed ways: Using the worker.name to generate the default threadpool name.

My doubts: The thread name might get longer. Will that affect anything? I am not sure if operating system has any limit on the size of thread name.

[maneesh29s]

The test that I have written is simply a copy of the test just above it, test_multiple_executors , with one change that I am also passing worker name.
Instead should we merge these 2 tests?

[github-actions]

Unit Test Results

See test report for an extended history of previous test failures. This is useful for diagnosing flaky tests.

    27 files  ± 0      27 suites  ±0   9h 27m 3s ⏱️ - 8m 43s
 4 112 tests + 1   4 002 ✅  -  1    104 💤 ±0  6 ❌ +3 
51 516 runs  +12  49 326 ✅ +10  2 184 💤 ±0  6 ❌ +3 

For more details on these failures, see this check.

Results for commit e433592. ± Comparison against base commit 8e604a0.

♻️ This comment has been updated with latest results.

[jacobtomlinson]

Thanks for implementing this. I agree about the name length concern.

This post seems to suggest that the linux kernel has a max length of 16 chars for thread names. Our current prefix already exceeds this so I assume it's not a problem. It seems that Python just sets the name as a string in threading.Thread(name=...), which means we can set it to whatever we like. I can't find any documentation that mentions a maximum length.

As we are both concerned about this I would recommend adding another test that creates a worker with a crazy long name. That would give us confidence that it's fine. You could merge the two existing tests into one, and then add a new one that explicitly tests a long name.

[maneesh29s]

I have added a check for very long worker name.

Also I have decided not to merge those 2 tests i.e. test_multiple_executors and the new test_executor_inherit_threadname_from_worker, since they test different functionality.

The test_multiple_executors also tests for a scenario when worker name is not provided by the user.

[jacobtomlinson]

Sounds good to me!

[maneesh29s]

The failing tests don't seem relevant to my PR here. Is there something I have to do from my end ?

[jacobtomlinson]

I agree flaky tests are unrelated