Rescue simultaneous errors raised inside threads - ruby

With the following script
threads = [
Thread.new { Thread.current.abort_on_exception = true; raise 'err' },
Thread.new { Thread.current.abort_on_exception = true; raise 'err' },
]
begin
threads.each(&:join)
rescue RuntimeError
puts "Got Error"
end
Half the time I get the expected "Got Error" with exit 0 and the other half I get test.rb:3:in block in <main>': err (RuntimeError).
Shouldn't rescue be able to handle this? If not what might be some alternative solutions for two threads raising an error simultaneously?
I've considered not using abort_on_exception = true but the problem is that if the first thread has, say sleep(10) before the raise, the second thread, which errors immediately, won't get caught until 10 seconds is up (due to the order of the threads array).
Ruby MRI version:
ruby 2.4.0p0 (2016-12-24 revision 57164) [x86_64-darwin15]
Any ideas would be greatly appreciated. Thanks!
Update
jruby-9.1.6.0 doesn't seem to have this problem. Possibly because the inherent thread safeness of it. It always prints Got Error without any exceptions. Unfortunately, JRuby is not on option for us.

Here are a few pieces of the puzzle here.
Firstly, the program only waits for the main thread to finish:
Thread.new { Thread.current.abort_on_exception = true; raise 'Oh, no!' }
puts 'Ready or not, here I come'
The above may or may not raise the error.
Secondly, if you join on a thread, an exception raised by that threads is re-raised by the joined thread from the #join method:
gollum = Thread.new { raise 'My precious!!!' }
begin
gollum.join
rescue => e
# Prints 'My precious!!!'
puts e.message
end
Now at that point, the execution is returned to the thread that joined. It is no longer joined to the thread that caused the error or any other thread. The reason it's not joined to other threads is because you can only join one thread at the time. threads.each(&:join) actually joins you to the first, when it ends - to the second and so on:
frodo = Thread.new { raise 'Oh, no, Frodo!' }
sam = Thread.new { raise 'Oh, no, Sam!' }
begin
[frodo, sam].each(&:join)
rescue => e
puts e.message
end
puts 'This is the end, my only friend, the end.'
The above prints
Oh, no, Frodo!
This is the end, my only friend, the end.
Now lets put it together:
frodo = Thread.new { Thread.current.abort_on_exception = true; raise 'Oh, no, Frodo!' }
sam = Thread.new { Thread.current.abort_on_exception = true; raise 'Oh, no, Sam!' }
begin
[frodo, sam].each(&:join)
rescue => e
puts e.message
end
puts 'This is the end, my only friend, the end.'
Many things can happen here. What is of importance is, if we manage to join (we don't get an error before that), the rescue will catch the exception in the main thread from whichever thread manages to raise it first and then continue after the rescue. After that, the main thread (and thus the program) may or may not finish before the other thread raises its exception.
Let examine some possible outputs:
ex.rb:1:in `block in ': Oh, no, Frodo! (RuntimeError)
Frodo raised his exception before we joined.
Oh, no, Sam!
This is the end, my only friend, the end.
After we joined, Sam was the first to raise an error. After we printed the error message in the main thread, we also printed the end. Then the main thread finished, before Frodo could raise his error.
Oh, no, Frodo!ex.rb:2:in `block in ': Oh, no, Sam! (RuntimeError)
We managed to join. Frodo was the first to raise, we rescued and printed. Sam raised before we could print the end.
Oh, no, Sam!
This is the end, my only friend, the end.ex.rb:1:in `block in ': Oh, no, Frodo! (RuntimeError)
(Very rarely) We managed to get to the rescue. Sam raised an error first and we printed it from the main thread. We printed the end. Just after the print, but before the main thread is terminated, Frodo managed to jab his error as well.
As for a possible solution, you just need as many rescues as there are threads that might raise. Note that I also put the thread creation in the safeguarded block to ensure we catch potential errors before joins as well:
def execute_safely_concurrently(number_of_threads, &work)
return if number_of_threads.zero?
begin
Thread.new(&work).join
rescue => e
puts e
end
execute_safely_concurrently(number_of_threads.pred, &work)
end
execute_safely_concurrently(2) do
Thread.current.abort_on_exception = true
raise 'Handle me, bitte!'
end

After looking at #ndn's idea of wrapping each thread in it's own rescue. It looks like this solves the problem. Here is his modified example that doesn't block execution on join.
#threads = []
def execute_safely_concurrently(&work)
begin
#threads << Thread.new(&work)
rescue RuntimeError => e
puts "Child Thread Rescue: #{e}"
end
end
execute_safely_concurrently do
Thread.current.abort_on_exception = true
sleep(3)
raise 'Handle me, bitte 1!'
end
execute_safely_concurrently do
Thread.current.abort_on_exception = true
raise 'Handle me, bitte 2!'
end
begin
#threads.each(&:join)
rescue RuntimeError => e
puts "Main Thread Rescue: #{e}"
end

Related

Detecting and handling NonLocalExit from ruby

I have this code that can trigger in production the "Non local exit detected!" branch. I can't understand how that can happen, since even a return will trigger a NonLocalExit exception. Even a throw will trigger an exception.
Is there any way to have exception_raised and yield_returned both false?
def transaction
yield_returned = exception_raised = nil
begin
if block_given?
result = yield
yield_returned = true
puts 'yield returned!'
result
end
rescue Exception => exc
exception_raised = exc
ensure
if block_given?
unless yield_returned or exception_raised
puts 'Non local exit detected!'
end
end
end
end
transaction do
puts 'good block!'
end
transaction do
puts 'starting transaction with block with return'
return
puts 'this will not show'
end
Output:
good block!
yield returned!
starting transaction with block with return
I want to somehow output 'Non local exit detected!'. I know this happens in production, but I can't make it happen in development. Tried it with a return and with a throw, but they both raise an exception. Any other way?
The problem was with my reproduction, and returning from the top-most level in Ruby. You can return from a method, where there's a stack, but if you return from Kernel, you'll get a LocalJumpError.
Assuming the previous method transaction(). In matters in what context you call return:
def lol
transaction do
puts 'Block in method: starting transaction with block with return'
return
puts 'this will not show'
end
end
lol()
transaction do
puts 'block in Kernel: starting transaction with block with return'
return
puts 'this will not show'
end
Output:
$ ruby local_jump_error.rb
# Running from method:
Block in method: starting transaction with block with return
yield_returned=nil, exception_raised=nil
Non local exit detected!
# Running without method:
block in Kernel: starting transaction with block with return
yield_returned=nil, exception_raised=#<LocalJumpError: unexpected return>
local_jump_error.rb:45: unexpected return (LocalJumpError)
from local_jump_error.rb:6:in `transaction'
from local_jump_error.rb:43
I don't know your level with Ruby, but to exit from a block you must use break instead of return. In this case, break also accepts a value in the same way that return does, meaning that a break will conceptually assign the variable result with the value from break.
In case of a throw, it will raise an exception, so it will always unwind the call stack until if finds a rescue statement, thus it will run the code exception_raised = exc.
You can fine tune the rescue to use LocalJumpError instead of Exception to only catch blocks that have return in them. All other exception types will then not stop at that rescue.
I wonder if you meant to write:
if block_given?
if yield_returned.nil? && exception_raised
puts 'Non local exit detected!'
end
end
If you make this change, the code will produce the 'Non local exit detected!', for the second method call of #transaction with the return.
When you wrote unless yield_returned or expection_raised, the if clause would get evaluated only when both the variables would have been false. And as I understand that is not possible.
And as a side note, as was suggested in the other answer, one should not rescue Exception, LocalJumpError should be enough.

Ruby threads: how to catch an exception without calling .join?

How to observe and rescue an error that happens in the thread without using .join? The code that I have right now:
Thread.abort_on_exception = true
begin
a = Thread.new { errory_code }
rescue Exception => detail
puts detail.message
end
sleep 1 #so that thread has enough time to execute
If I understand it correctly, Thread.abort_on_exception = true aborts thread execution (that is, raises an exception). But why rescue doesn't catch it?
You're expecting the rescue operation to catch exceptions from a bit of code that's run long after Ruby's exited that begin ... end block. That's not going to happen.
Remember when you're dealing with threads, things happen out of order.
The only exceptions you can catch there are those relating to the creation of the thread. What happens inside the thread is a whole other world.
Using join forces your code to wait until the thread is complete, so that gets the ordering correct. Thread exceptions can then be caught.
I figured out how to do it - I just need to wrap insides of my thread into a rescue block like that:
Thread.abort_on_exception = true
a = Thread.new do
begin #new
errory_code
rescue Exception => detail #new
puts detail.message #new
end #new
end
sleep 1 #so that thread has enough time to execute
Which is a horribly obvious solution, - but, since it took me so long to think of it, will hopefully help somebody.

How to capture an exception from another thread

How can I capture an exception from another thread?
I want to do this for some particular thread, and not for other threads, so I cannot turn on abort_on_exception to true.
I want to do something in the main thread with the exception, so I cannot simply do puts, pp, etc. with the exception within the thread that raised in exception.
I found an answer in How to get error messages from ruby threads that suggests using catch, and I think that is the way I want to go, but I cannot not fully figure out how to do it. Or is there a better way? I also found an answer suggesting to use Queue class, but have concern that it may be overkill.
If you turn on abort_on_exception then you won't have a chance to catch it. You can, however, leave that off and simply catch it when you do the join operation on your thread.
thread = Thread.new do
raise "Uh oh"
end
begin
thread.join
rescue => e
puts "Caught exception: #{e}"
end
The alternative is to make the thread catch its own exception and save it somewhere you can fetch it from later. For instance:
exceptions = { }
Thread.new do
begin
raise "Uh oh"
rescue => e
exceptions[Thread.current] = e
end
end
sleep(1)
puts exceptions.inspect
# => {#<Thread:0x007f9832889920 dead>=>#<RuntimeError: Uh oh>}

Which system signal is sent to a ruby program when an exception is raised and the program stops execution?

Any time my program stops execution (either when shut down by cmd-c or when it encounters an exception), I want to take a few actions to shut down properly.
When I do cmd-c, I receive the signal TERM. What signal is sent when the program encounters an exception that is raised? How do I trap this with Signal.trap(...)?
You could wrap your code in a begin-ensure-end block. It would catch exceptions and CTRL-C. (You could add a rescue clause before the ensure).
begin
sleep 10 #try CTRL-C here
raise "kaboom" #RuntimeError
ensure
puts "This must be printed no matter what."
end
An exception is not a signal. The Ruby interpreter handles exceptions all in user code; there's nothing to trap.
If you want to handle exceptions, you need to do so in a rescue block.
You can't catch the exception as a signal, but you can do something when it's raised using the 'EXIT' signal:
Signal.trap('EXIT') do
puts "Terminating..."
shutdown()
end
However, I just stated that you can do this; you really should use begin and rescue.
The point wit exceptions is not trapping the signal via Signal.trap but rather wrapping the code that may raise an exception in a begin-rescue-end block. You have more Options though:
begin
# here goes the code that may raise an exception
rescue ThisError
# this code is executed when 'ThisError' was raised
rescue ThatError, AnotherError
# this code is executed when 'ThatError' or 'AnotherError' was raised
rescue
# this code is executed when any other StandardError was raised
else
# this code is executed when NO exception was raised
ensure
# this code is always executed
end
Here are some bit more practical examples of how to use this:
def compute_something(x,y)
raise ArgumentError, 'x must not be lower than 0' if x < 0
x/y + y
end
begin
compute_something(-10,5)
rescue ArgumentError
puts "some argument is erroneous!"
end
puts "---"
x=100
y=0
begin
compute_something(x,y)
rescue ZeroDivisionError
puts "division by zero! trying to fix that..."
y=1
retry
else
puts "everything fine!"
end
puts "---"
begin
compute_something(1)
rescue => e
puts "the following error occured:"
puts e
end
puts "---"
begin
exit
ensure
puts "i am always called!"
end
this outputs:
some argument is erroneous!
---
division by zero! trying to fix that...
everything fine!
---
the following error occured:
wrong number of arguments (1 for 2)
---
i am always called!
As an alternative to the above solutions, you could look into the at_exit method.

Capturing Ctrl-c in ruby

I was passed a long running legacy ruby program, which has numerous occurrences of
begin
#dosomething
rescue Exception => e
#halt the exception's progress
end
throughout it.
Without tracking down every single possible exception these each could be handling (at least not immediately), I'd still like to be able to shut it down at times with CtrlC.
And I'd like to do so in a way which only adds to the code (so I don't affect the existing behavior, or miss an otherwise caught exception in the middle of a run.)
[CtrlC is SIGINT, or SystemExit, which appears to be equivalent to SignalException.new("INT") in Ruby's exception handling system. class SignalException < Exception, which is why this problem comes up.]
The code I would like to have written would be:
begin
#dosomething
rescue SignalException => e
raise e
rescue Exception => e
#halt the exception's progress
end
EDIT: This code works, as long as you get the class of the exception you want to trap correct. That's either SystemExit, Interrupt, or IRB::Abort as below.
The problem is that when a Ruby program ends, it does so by raising SystemExit. When a control-C comes in, it raises Interrupt. Since both SystemExit and Interrupt derive from Exception, your exception handling is stopping the exit or interrupt in its tracks. Here's the fix:
Wherever you can, change
rescue Exception => e
# ...
end
to
rescue StandardError => e
# ...
end
for those you can't change to StandardError, re-raise the exception:
rescue Exception => e
# ...
raise
end
or, at the very least, re-raise SystemExit and Interrupt
rescue SystemExit, Interrupt
raise
rescue Exception => e
#...
end
Any custom exceptions you have made should derive from StandardError, not Exception.
If you can wrap your whole program you can do something like the following:
trap("SIGINT") { throw :ctrl_c }
catch :ctrl_c do
begin
sleep(10)
rescue Exception
puts "Not printed"
end
end
This basically has CtrlC use catch/throw instead of exception handling, so unless the existing code already has a catch :ctrl_c in it, it should be fine.
Alternatively you can do a trap("SIGINT") { exit! }. exit! exits immediately, it does not raise an exception so the code can't accidentally catch it.
If you can't wrap your whole application in a begin ... rescue block (e.g., Thor) you can just trap SIGINT:
trap "SIGINT" do
puts "Exiting"
exit 130
end
130 is a standard exit code.
I am using ensure to great effect! This is for things you want to have happen when your stuff ends no matter why it ends.
Handling Ctrl-C cleanly in Ruby the ZeroMQ way:
#!/usr/bin/env ruby
# Shows how to handle Ctrl-C
require 'ffi-rzmq'
context = ZMQ::Context.new(1)
socket = context.socket(ZMQ::REP)
socket.bind("tcp://*:5558")
trap("INT") { puts "Shutting down."; socket.close; context.terminate; exit}
puts "Starting up"
while true do
message = socket.recv_string
puts "Message: #{message.inspect}"
socket.send_string("Message received")
end
Source
Perhaps the most simple solution?
Signal.trap('INT') { exit }
This is what I use, it works. Put it somewhere before a possible user interaction.
Here, a more verbose solution, to print something to STDERR and exit:
Signal.trap('INT') { abort 'Interrupted by user' }
See here for difference between exit and abort.

Resources