Make ray.get(timeout=0) to throw timeout error

[vitrioil]

Why are these changes needed?

As mentioned in the issue it makes it consistent with other .get call.

However, I wonder if this change might be unexpected for existing code where 0 is already used without expecting an error.

Related issue number

Closes #28465

Checks

• I've signed off every commit(by using the -s flag, i.e., git commit -s) in this PR.
• I've run scripts/format.sh to lint the changes in this PR.
• I've included any doc changes needed for https://docs.ray.io/en/master/.
• I've made sure the tests are passing. Note that there might be a few flaky tests, see the recent failures at https://flakey-tests.ray.io/
• Testing Strategy
  • Unit tests
  • Release tests
  • This PR is not tested :(

[vitrioil]

@krfricke any idea who can review this? (I think the build failures are unrelated?)

[krfricke]

I think the main question is if this was intended API before or not. But yes, this will effectively be an API change and it will be hard to provide a graceful transition.

[krfricke]

Looks good to me, thanks!

[krfricke]

After internal discussion, it seems like this was a bug and we should fix it. cc @rickyyx to take a look from Ray core side

[rickyyx]

via GIPHY

Should we also piggyback doc improvmeent?

ray/python/ray/_private/worker.py

Lines 2272 to 2285 in e1a8796

	Args:
	object_refs: Object ref of the object to get or a list of object refs
	to get.
	timeout (Optional[float]): The maximum amount of time in seconds to
	wait before returning.
	Returns:
	A Python object or a list of Python objects.
	Raises:
	GetTimeoutError: A GetTimeoutError is raised if a timeout is set and
	the get takes longer than timeout to return.
	Exception: An exception is raised if the task that created the object
	or that created one of the objects raised an exception.

I feel the current documentation is not explicit in the behaviour of timeout=0 vs timeout=None, which could be better.

Also, does it make sense to change these as well now we have a proper timeout=0 behaviour:
https://sourcegraph.com/search?q=context:global+repo:%5Egithub%5C.com/ray-project/ray%24+ray.get.*timeout%3D0.1&patternType=standard&sm=1

[rkooo567]

We shouldn't always raise an error? I think it should get the object if the object is ready. Is this covered?

[rkooo567]

request change on the comment ^

[krfricke]

@vitrioil let me know if you want to take these changes, otherwise I'm happy to add them to this PR later this week

[rickyyx]

An update on this - since this change will be breaking backward compatibility (there might be users who have code depends on this "buggy" behaviour), we will take a slower migration approach.

1. We will collect some signals on existing usage of ray.get(timeout=0)
   a. telemetry data
   b. Ask in slack and OSS community
2. [Optional] add warnings of changes in the future release.
   a. This step will depend on if there's significant usage of the timeout=0 behaviour.
3. Perform the migration (this PR) in future releases.

[stale]

This pull request has been automatically marked as stale because it has not had recent activity. It will be closed in 14 days if no further activity occurs. Thank you for your contributions.

• If you'd like to keep this open, just leave any comment, and the stale label will be removed.

[krfricke]

This is still relevant. Can we make the stale bot less aggressive?

[stale]

This pull request has been automatically marked as stale because it has not had recent activity. It will be closed in 14 days if no further activity occurs. Thank you for your contributions.

• If you'd like to keep this open, just leave any comment, and the stale label will be removed.

[rickyyx]

Keep.

[stale]

This pull request has been automatically marked as stale because it has not had recent activity. It will be closed in 14 days if no further activity occurs. Thank you for your contributions.

• If you'd like to keep this open, just leave any comment, and the stale label will be removed.

[stale]

Hi again! The issue will be closed because there has been no more activity in the 14 days since the last message.

Please feel free to reopen or open a new issue if you'd still like it to be addressed.

Again, you can always ask for help on our discussion forum or Ray's public slack channel.

Thanks again for opening the issue!

[rkooo567]

This will be done by #28465 in ray 2.5