-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 1.2k
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
Gracefully close websocket connections #3638
Draft
john-markham
wants to merge
5
commits into
99designs:master
Choose a base branch
from
john-markham:jm/fix-websockets
base: master
Could not load branches
Branch not found: {{ refName }}
Loading
Could not load tags
Nothing to show
Loading
Are you sure you want to change the base?
Some commits from the old base branch may be removed from the timeline,
and old review comments may become outdated.
Draft
Changes from all commits
Commits
Show all changes
5 commits
Select commit
Hold shift + click to select a range
5bd7732
Gracefully close websocket connections
john-markham 49ad6a2
Fix double close write bug
john-markham 7920ef4
Add comment detailing optimization
john-markham afb5d98
Add server-driven close unit test
john-markham 91c086f
Address feedback around defer unlock
john-markham File filter
Filter by extension
Conversations
Failed to load comments.
Loading
Jump to
Jump to file
Failed to load files.
Loading
Diff view
Diff view
There are no files selected for viewing
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Oops, something went wrong.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
This will have performance implications
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Yeah totally. I'm open to suggestions as to how we should measure how much this impacts performance as this is a concern for me and my team as well.
Overall though - if the thesis of this PR is correct (that we are not gracefully handling shutdown), I'm inclined to trade perf off to get us closer to WS spec compliance.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Ideally we have a solution that does both: doesn't impact perf and gracefully shuts down the connection. Again open to suggestions on how to refactor the implementation to do both.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
There are multiple ways to do that that would not require mutext in a loop, also i would check for server closed after c.me.NextMessage() call, because it would block on that until next message comes, so you probably wanna handle it as soon as you get any message and not on the next iteration