Worker process should also be waited

[dorinelfilip]

❤️ Thank you for your contribution!

Description

Please describe briefly your pull request.

There are cases (such as the port being already in use or other fatal errors) when the server closes unexpectedly and the worker process is left running in the background with no easy option to catch it.

I changed the run command, such that it also waits for the worker. I have also add some red messages to point the die event of the server process.

Checklist

Ticks in all boxes and 🟢 on all GitHub actions status checks are required to merge:

• I'm aware of the code of conduct.
• I've created logical separate commits and followed the commit message format.
• I've added relevant test cases.
• I've added relevant documentation.
• [] I've marked translation strings.
• I've identified the copyright holder(s) and updated copyright headers for touched files (>15 lines contributions).
• I've NOT included third-party code (copy/pasted source code or new dependencies).
  • If you have added third-party code (copy/pasted or new dependencies), please reach out to an architect.

Reminder

By using GitHub, you have already agreed to the GitHub’s Terms of Service including that:

1. You license your contribution under the same terms as the current repository’s license.
2. You agree that you have the right to license your contribution under the current repository’s license.

[fenekku]

Sorry about the delay for review, we were focused on v12 release at the time and some of us are only now finding some time to catch-up on community PRs.

Let us know if the change makes sense and we can get it in. I will only be back in January and will merge this in by then if no other movement on this.

Thanks for the contribution!

[fenekku]

Should this be:

Suggested change

	worker.wait()
	worker.terminate()

instead? At this point, the worker process should be killed since the server has ended (we reached this code). The signal.SIGINT handling above would have addressed the interrupt case.