taskserver | Taskserver - Taskwarrior Synchronisation Server | Data Processing library

There are multiple problems with your code. The one that is causing the immediate issue you are seeing is that you are using await reader.read() to read a "message" from the client. TCP is a streaming protocol, so it doesn't have a concept of messages, only of a stream of bytes that arrive in the order in which they were sent by the client. The read() method will read all data until EOF. This is almost certainly not what you want. Since you have a "header" defined, you should probably be calling reader.readexactly(header). Then you should strip the trailing whitespace off the message, and only then should you try to match it against known strings.

The next problem is in the condition while request != disconnect_message. If the end-of-file condition is encountered, StreamReader.read will return an empty bytes object, b''. This will be not compare equal to the disconnect message, so your loop will continue looping, with each subsequent read() again returning b'' to again indicate EOF. This causes the infinite loop you are seeing, and you can fix it by checking for either disconnect_message or b''.

Your client also has an issue: it creates two completely separate connections to the server - notice how receive_cfg_and_send_msg opens a new connection. The first connection is closed by the garbage collector on function exit which causes the infinite loop on the server. The second connection tries to reach the server, but the server is now completely stuck in the infinite loop of the first connection. (See e.g. this answer for explanation why it's stuck despite apparently awaiting.)

Finally, the client contains multiple calls to asyncio.run(). While you can do that, it's not how asyncio.run is supposed to be used - you should probably have a single async def main() function and call it through asyncio.run(main()). Inside that function you should await the async functions you need to run (or combine them using asyncio.gather(), etc.)

I don’t see any “resources:” fields (e.g. cpu, mem, etc.) assigned, and this should be the root cause. Please be aware that having resource(s) set on a HPA (Horizontal Pod Autoscaler) is a requirement, explained on official Kubernetes documentation

Please note that if some of the Pod's containers do not have the relevant resource request set, CPU utilization for the Pod will not be defined and the autoscaler will not take any action for that metric.

This can definitely cause the message unable to read all metrics on target Deployment(s).

At the moment the max version of windows 10 is version 20H2(OS Build 19042.630). The TLS1.3 server works well only when TLS1.3 server is enabled in regedit. But TLS1.3 client does not work even TLS1.3 client is enabled in regedit. At the moment TLS1.3 client only works in Windows 10 Insider Preview Build 20170.

Yes, but the underlying operating system has to support it.
In your case, you have to enable it in the registry because it's disabled by default.

That depends on the underlying operating system.
.NET uses different implementations based on the OS, e.g. OpenSSL on Linux, Schannel on Windows

TLS 1.3 is supported since .NET Core 3.0, as you can read from the docs.

The statement by the time of .NET Core 3.0 will be modified shortly:

Windows and macOS do not yet support TLS 1.3. .NET Core 3.0 will support TLS 1.3 on these operating systems when support becomes available.

Windows supports TLS 1.3 since version 1903, but it's disabled by default.
There is another question which answers how to enable it on Windows:
how to enable TLS 1.3 in windows 10

TLS 1.3 is enabled by default on Windows 10 Insider Preview builds, starting with Build 20170:
Taking Transport Layer Security (TLS) to the next level with TLS 1.3
According to this article:

TLS 1.3 support will also be added to .NET beginning with version 5.0.

A good summary of the current process is stated by karelz on GitHub (this issue also should track when .NET Framework gets support):
https://github.com/dotnet/docs/issues/4675#issuecomment-678421120