Is it OK not to call Thread#join? In this case, I don't care if the thread blows up - I just want Unicorn to keep processing.
class MyMiddleware
def initialize(app)
#app = app
end
def call(env)
t = Thread.new { sleep 1 }
t.join # is it ok if I skip this?
#app.call env
end
end
Will I get "zombie threads" or something like that?
It's perfectly fine to not call join - in fact, join is often not needed at all with multithreaded code. You should only call join if you need to block until the new thread completes.
You won't get a "zombie" thread. The new thread will run until completion, then clean itself up for you.
Related
Is it possible to create a "worker thread" so to speak that is on standby until it receives a function to execute asynchronously?
Is there a way to send a function like
def some_function
puts "hi"
# write something
db.exec()
end
to an existing thread that's just sitting there waiting?
The idea is I'd like to pawn off some database writes to a thread which runs asynchronously.
I thought about creating a Queue instance, then have a thread do something like this:
$command = Queue.new
Thread.new do
while trigger = $command.pop
some_method
end
end
$command.push("go!")
However this does not seem like a particularly good way to go about it. What is a better alternative?
The thread gem looks like it would suit your needs:
require 'thread/channel'
def some_method
puts "hi"
end
channel = Thread.channel
Thread.new do
while data = channel.receive
some_method
end
end
channel.send("go!")
channel.send("ruby!") # Any truthy message will do
channel.send(nil) # Non-truthy message to terminate other thread
sleep(1) # Give other thread time to do I/O
The channel uses ConditionVariable, which you could use yourself if you prefer.
In RSpec, I have function that creates a new thread, and inside that thread performs some action–in my case, calls TCPSocket#readline. Here's the function as it is right now:
def read
Thread.new do
while line = #socket.readline
#TODO: stuff
end
end
end
Due to thread scheduling, my test will fail if written as such:
it "reads from socket" do
subject.socket.should_receive(:readline)
subject.read
end
Currently the only way I know to hack around this is to use sleep 0.1. Is there a way to properly delay the test until that thread is running?
If your goal is to assert the system state is changed by the execution of your second thread, you should join on the second thread in your main test thread:
it "reads from socket" do
subject.socket.should_receive(:readline)
socket_thread = subject.read
socket_thread.join
end
This is a bit of a hack, but here's a before block you can use in case you'd like the thread to yield but be able to call join at the end of the thread.
before do
allow(Thread).to receive(:new).and_yield.and_return(Class.new { def join; end }.new)
end
I'm trying to create a simple multithreaded program with jRuby. It needs to start and stop threads based on a specified amount of time e.g. run for five seconds then stop. I'm pretty new to this sort of stuff, so it's probably pretty basic but I can't get it to work.
The relevant code looks like this:
require 'java'
require 'timeout'
require './lib/t1.rb'
require './lib/t2.rb'
class Threads
[...]
def manage_threads
thread2 = T2.new
# Wait for 5 seconds before the thread starts running..
thread2.run(wait_time = 5)
Timeout::timeout(10) do
thread1 = T1.new {}
end
end
class T1 < Thread
def initialize
while super.status != "sleep"
puts "Thread 1"
sleep(1)
end
end
end
class T2
include java.lang.Runnable
def run wait_time
thread = Thread.new do
sleep(wait_time)
loop do
puts "Thread 2"
sleep(1)
end
end
end
def stop_thread(after_run_time)
sleep(after_run_time)
end
end
I have already tried a couple if things, for example:
# Used timeout
Timeout::timeout(10) do
thread1 = T1.new {}
end
# This kinda works, except that it terminates the program and therefore isn't the behavior
# I want.
Does anyone have a suggestion on how to 1. start a thread, run it for a while. 2. Start a new thread, run both thread in parallel. 2. Stop thread 1 but keep running thread 2. Any tips/suggestions would be appreciated.
I think I solved it.
This did the trick:
def run wait_time
thread = Thread.new do
sleep(wait_time)
second_counter = 0
loop do
puts "Thread 2"
second_counter += 1
if second_counter == 15
sleep
end
sleep(1)
end
end
end
I'm trying to do something like this, where I have two loops going in seperate threads. The problem I am having is that in the main thread, when I use gets and the script is waiting for user input, the other thread is stopped to wait as well.
class Server
def initialize
#server = TCPServer.new(8080)
run
end
def run
#thread = Thread.new(#server) { |server|
while true
newsock = server.accept
puts "some stuff after accept!"
next if !newsock
# some other stuff
end
}
end
end
def processCommand
# some user commands here
end
test = Server.new
while true do
processCommand(STDIN.gets)
end
The above is just a sample of what I want to do.
Is there a way to make the main thread block while waiting for user input?
You might want to take a look at using the select method of the IO class. Take a look at
good select example for handling select with asynchronous input. Depending upon what version of ruby you're using you might have issues with STDIN though, I'm pretty sure it always triggers the select in 1.8.6.
I'm not sure if this is what you are looking for, but I was looking for something similar and this example does exactly what I wanted. The thread will continue processing until the user hits enter, and then the thread will be able to handle your user input as desired.
user_input = nil
t1 = Thread.new do
while !user_input
puts "Running"
end
puts "Stopping per user input: #{user_input}"
end
user_input = STDIN.gets
t1.join
I'm writing a delayed_job clone for DataMapper. I've got what I think is working and tested code except for the thread in the worker process. I looked to delayed_job for how to test this but there are now tests for that portion of the code. Below is the code I need to test. ideas? (I'm using rspec BTW)
def start
say "*** Starting job worker #{#name}"
t = Thread.new do
loop do
delay = Update.work_off(self) #this method well tested
break if $exit
sleep delay
break if $exit
end
clear_locks
end
trap('TERM') { terminate_with t }
trap('INT') { terminate_with t }
trap('USR1') do
say "Wakeup Signal Caught"
t.run
end
see also this thread
The best approach, I believe, is to stub the Thread.new method, and make sure that any "complicated" stuff is in it's own method which can be tested individually. Thus you would have something like this:
class Foo
def start
Thread.new do
do_something
end
end
def do_something
loop do
foo.bar(bar.foo)
end
end
end
Then you would test like this:
describe Foo
it "starts thread running do_something" do
f = Foo.new
expect(Thread).to receive(:new).and_yield
expect(f).to receive(:do_something)
f.start
end
it "do_something loops with and calls foo.bar with bar.foo" do
f = Foo.new
expect(f).to receive(:loop).and_yield #for multiple yields: receive(:loop).and_yield.and_yield.and_yield...
expect(foo).to receive(:bar).with(bar.foo)
f.do_something
end
end
This way you don't have to hax around so much to get the desired result.
You could start the worker as a subprocess when testing, waiting for it to fully start, and then check the output / send signals to it.
I suspect you can pick up quite a few concrete testing ideas in this area from the Unicorn project.
Its impossible to test threads completely. Best you can do is to use mocks.
(something like)
object.should_recieve(:trap).with('TERM').and yield
object.start
How about just having the thread yield right in your test.
Thread.stub(:new).and_yield
start
# assertions...