Assuming that I have a function that sends web requests to an API endpoint, I would like to add a timeout to the client so that if the call is taking too long, the operation breaks either by returning an error or panicing the current thread.
Another assumption is that, the client function (the function that sends web requests) comes from a library and it has been implemented in a synchronous way.
Let's have a look at the client function's signature:
func Send(params map[string]string) (*http.Response, error)
I would like to write a wrapper around this function to add a timeout mechanism. To do that, I can do:
func SendWithTimeout(ctx context.Context, params map[string]string) (*http.Response, error) {
completed := make(chan bool)
go func() {
res, err := Send(params)
_ = res
_ = err
completed <- true
}()
for {
select {
case <-ctx.Done():
{
return nil, errors.New("Cancelled")
}
case <-completed:
{
return nil, nil // just to test how this method works
}
}
}
}
Now when I call the new function and pass a cancellable context, I successfully get a cancellation error, but the goroutine that is running the original Send function keeps on running to the end.
Since, the function makes an API call meaning that establishing socket/TCP connections are actually involved in the background, it is not a good practice to leave a long-running API behind the scene.
Is there any standard way to interrupt the original Send function when the context.Done() is hit?
This is a "poor" design choice to add context support to an existing API / implementation that did not support it earlier. Context support should be added to the existing Send() implementation that uses it / monitors it, renaming it to SendWithTimeout(), and provide a new Send() function that takes no context, and calls SendWithTimeout() with context.TODO() or context.Background().
For example if your Send() function makes an outgoing HTTP call, that may be achieved by using http.NewRequest() followed by Client.Do(). In the new, context-aware version use http.NewRequestWithContext().
If you have a Send() function which you cannot change, then you're "out of luck". The function itself has to support the context or cancellation. You can't abort it from the outside.
See related:
Terminating function execution if a context is cancelled
Is it possible to cancel unfinished goroutines?
Stopping running function using context timeout in Golang
cancel a blocking operation in Go
Related
I have an unary gRPC call that can take up to few minute to be processed on my Go gRPC server (involves human agent on the mobile APP). I would like to know if there is a way to check if the connection has been terminated on the client side before sending the response.
I found the solution for ServerStreaming case with Context Status.Done channel, but it does not work for my Unary RPC.
Below is the signature of the function where the control should be made:
func (*Server) EndpointName(ctx context.Context, in *pb.EndpointRequest) (*pb.EndpointResponse, error) {
As per the function definition shown in your question, the endpoint function is passed a context (ctx context.Context). If the connection drops the context will be cancelled.
For example I can modify the helloworld example so that it simulates a long running job:
func (s *server) SayHello(ctx context.Context, in *pb.HelloRequest) (*pb.HelloReply, error) {
select {
case <-ctx.Done():
fmt.Println("Context is done:", ctx.Err())
return nil, status.Error(codes.Canceled, "does not matter as nothing will ever get this anyway...")
case <-time.After(time.Minute):
// This simulates a long-running process. In reality the process itself should be checking the context
}
return &pb.HelloReply{}, nil
}
To test this I altered greeter_client to call the function and then panic() whilst waiting for the response; the server outputs:
2022/08/08 08:16:57 server listening at [::]:50051
Context is done: context canceled
I want to write a WithContext method for a struct and am taking inspiration from net/http's Request.WithContext.
My question is: why does Request.WithContext panic if the context is nil:
func (r *Request) WithContext(ctx context.Context) *Request {
if ctx == nil {
panic("nil context")
}
...
}
And should mine as well?
For more context on why I want to create a WithContext method: I am implementing an interface that does not provide a context parameter in its signature but believe the implementation requires it.
More specifically, I am writing a Redis backend for gorilla/session using the official Redis client for Go, where the Get and Set methods take context.Context.
The idea is that my redis store will be shallow copied with the new context object, when needed, and then used:
type redisStore struct {
codecs []securecookie.Codec
backend Backend // custom interface for Redis client
options *sessions.Options
ctx context.Context
}
func (s *redisStore) WithContext(ctx context.Context) *redisStore {
if ctx == nil {
panic("nil context")
}
s2 := new(redisStore)
*s2 = *s
s2.ctx = ctx
return s2
}
// Backend
type Backend interface {
Set(context.Context, string, interface{}) error
Get(context.Context, string) (string, error)
Del(context.Context, string) error
}
The purpose of panicking is to "fail fast" and reject a nil context without changing the function signature.
If the function does not panic then it must return error in order to reject a bad input:
func (r *Request) WithContext(ctx context.Context) (*Request, error) {
if ctx == nil {
return nil, errors.New("nil ctx")
}
...
}
And then who calls this function must handle the error to avoid using an invalid request:
request, err = request.WithContext(nil)
if err != nil {
}
By handling the error you are introducing a control flow branch, and you lose method chaining. You also cannot immediately use WithContext return value into a function parameter:
// cannot do, because WithContext returns an error too
data, err := fetchDataWithContext(request.WithContext(ctx), otherParam)
Also it would create an error instance that will be eventually garbage collected. This all is cumbersome, poor usability and unnecessary alloc simply for saying "don't give me a nil context".
About creating a redis store with a context, the context documentation is clear:
Package context defines the Context type, which carries deadlines, cancellation signals, and other request-scoped values across API boundaries and between processes.
The important detail is request-scoped. So setting a context in the redis client itself is contrary to this recommendation. You should pass context values at each get/set call.
The context of an HTTP request is canceled if the client closes the connection. When the context is canceled, all its child contexts are also canceled, so a nil context would panic then. Because of this, you cannot pass a nil context to WithContext.
Whether or not your redis store should panic depends on how you are going to use that context. It is usually not a good idea to include a context in a struct. One acceptable way of doing that is if the struct itself is a context. Contexts should be created for each call, should live for the duration of that call, and then thrown away.
I reuse the http client connection to make external calls to a single endpoint. An excerpt of the program is shown below:
var AppCon MyApp
func New(user, pass string, platformURL *url.URL, restContext string) (*MyApp, error) {
if AppCon == (MyApp{}) {
AppCon = MyApp{
user: user,
password: pass,
URL: platformURL,
Client: &http.Client{Timeout: 30 * time.Second},
RESTContext: restContext,
}
cj, err := cookiejar.New(nil)
if err != nil {
return &AppCon, err
}
AppCon.cookie = cj
}
return &AppCon, nil
}
// This is an example only. There are many more functions which accept *MyApp as a pointer.
func(ma *MyApp) GetUser(name string) (string, error){
// Return user
}
func main(){
for {
// Get messages from a queue
// The message returned from the queue provide info on which methods to call
// 'm' is a struct with message metadata
c, err := New(m.un, m.pass, m.url)
go func(){
// Do something i.e c.GetUser("123456")
}()
}
}
I now have the requirement to set up a client connections with different endpoints/credentials received via queue messages.
The problem I foresee is I can't just simply modify AppCon with the new endpoint details since a pointer to MyApp is returned, resulting in resetting c. This can impact a goroutine making a HTTP call to an unintended endpoint. To make matters non trivial, the program is not meant to have awareness of the endpoints (I was considering using a switch statement) but rather receive what it needs via queue messages.
Given the issues I've called out are correct, are there any recommendations on how to solve it?
EDIT 1
Based on the feedback provided, I am inclined to believe this will solve my problem:
Remove the use of a Singleton of MyApp
Decouple the http client from MyApp which will enable it for reuse
var httpClient *http.Client
func New(user, pass string, platformURL *url.URL, restContext string) (*MyApp, error) {
AppCon = MyApp{
user: user,
password: pass,
URL: platformURL,
Client: func() *http.Client {
if httpClient == nil {
httpClient = &http.Client{Timeout: 30 * time.Second}
}
return httpClient
}()
RESTContext: restContext,
}
return &AppCon, nil
}
// This is an example only. There are many more functions which accept *MyApp as a pointer.
func(ma *MyApp) GetUser(name string) (string, error){
// Return user
}
func main(){
for {
// Get messages from a queue
// The message returned from the queue provide info on which methods to call
// 'm' is a struct with message metadata
c, err := New(m.un, m.pass, m.url)
// Must pass a reference
go func(c *MyApp){
// Do something i.e c.GetUser("123456")
}(c)
}
}
Disclaimer: this is not a direct answer to your question but rather an attempt to direct you to a proper way of solving your problem.
Try to avoid a singleton pattern for you MyApp. In addition, New is misleading, it doesn't actually create a new object every time. Instead you could be creating a new instance every time, while preserving the http client connection.
Don't use constructions like this: AppCon == (MyApp{}), one day you will shoot in your leg doing this. Use instead a pointer and compare it to nil.
Avoid race conditions. In your code you start a goroutine and immediately proceed to the new iteration of the for loop. Considering you re-use the whole MyApp instance, you essentially introduce a race condition.
Using cookies, you make your connection kinda stateful, but your task seems to require stateless connections. There might be something wrong in such an approach.
I'm using the pion/webrtc Go library in my project and found this problem that the callback-based API the library provides (which mirrors the JavaScript API of WebRTC) can be awkward to use in Go.
For example, doing the following
conn.OnTrack(func(...) { ... })
conn.OnICEConnectionStateChange(func(...) { ... })
is typical in JavaScript, but in Go, this has a few problems:
This API makes it easy to introduce data race, if the callbacks are called in parallel.
The callback-based API propagates to other part of the codebase and makes everything takes callbacks.
What's the conventional way to handle this situation in Go? I'm new to Go and I read that synchronous API is preferred in Go because Goroutines are cheap. So perhaps one possible design is to use a channel to synchronize the callbacks:
msgChan := make(chan Msg)
// or use a separate channel for each type of event?
conn.OnTrack(func(...) {
msgChan <- onTrackMsg
})
conn.OnICEConnectionStateChange(func(...) {
msgChan <- onStateChangeMsg
})
for {
msg := <-msgChan
// do something depending on the type of msg
}
I think forcing synchronization with channels basically mimics the single-threaded nature of JavaScript.
Anyway, how do people usually model event-driven workflow in Go?
No need for a channel. Just wrap your async/callback code in a single function that waits for a response, and use a WaitGroup (you could use a channel here instead, but a WaitGroup is much easier):
func DoSomething() (someType, error) {
var result SomeType
var err error
wg := sync.WaitGroup{}
wg.Add(1)
StartAsyncProcess(func() {
// This is the call back that gets called eventually
defer wg.Done()
result = /* Set the result */
err = /* and/or set the error */
})
wg.Wait() // Wait until the callback is called, and exits
return result, err // And finally return our values
}
You may need/wish to add additional locks or synchronization in the callback, if necessary in your case, if your callback relies on or modifies shared state.
I am making multiple RPC calls to my server where the handler looks like:
func (h *handler) GetData(ctx context.Context, request Payload) (*Data, error) {
go func(ctx context.Context) {
for {
test := 0
select {
case <-ctx.Done():
if ctx.Err() == context.Canceled {
log.Info(ctx.Err())
test = 1
break
}
}
if test == 1 {
break
}
}
}(ctx)
data := fetchData(request)
return data, nil
}
the fetchData API takes around 5 seconds to get data and reply back to my service. Meanwhile if the client requests again, then I abort the old request and fire a new request. The abort is not visible on context object.
Rather ctx.Err() shows a value of context.Canceled even when the calls are not cancelled and end gracefully with expected data.
I am new to Go and don't understand how exactly context manages Cancels, timeout and completion.
Some insight on the behaviour will be helpful.
From the docs (emphasize mine):
For incoming server requests, the context is canceled when the client's connection closes, the request is canceled (with HTTP/2), or when the ServeHTTP method returns.
In other words, cancellation does not necessarly mean that the client aborted the request.
Contexts that can be canceled must be canceled eventually, and the HTTP server takes care of that:
Canceling this context releases resources associated with it, so code should call cancel as soon as the operations running in this Context complete.
What you observe works as intended.