Add serverWillStop lifecycle hook; call stop() on signals by default #4450

glasser · 2020-08-04T08:08:33Z

This PR adds a serverWillStop plugin lifecycle hook. The serverWillStop hook
is on an object optionally returned from a serverWillStart hook, similar to
executionDidStart/executionDidEnd.

ApolloServerPluginOperationRegistry uses this to stop its agent.

The code that installs SIGINT and SIGTERM handlers unless disabled with
handleSignals: false is hoisted from EngineReportingAgent to ApolloServer
itself and renamed to stopOnTerminationSignals as a new ApolloServer
option. The new implementation also skips installing the signals handlers by
default if NODE_ENV=test or if you don't appear to be running in Node (and we
update some tests that explicitly set other NODE_ENVs to set handleSignals:
false).

The main effect on existing code is that on one of these signals, any
SubscriptionServer and ApolloGateway will be stopped in addition to any
EngineReportingAgent.

glasser · 2020-08-04T08:10:40Z

Some thoughts:

I'd appreciate review now but probably won't try to merge this until the other work I'm doing around lifecycles and plugins is done. That will hopefully make it easier to test this; it wasn't clear what existing tests could easily add a test of this.
I did update the docs for handleSignals but I didn't update the plugin API docs. I note that the executionDidStop/willResolveField changes aren't documented yet either (as tracked in docs: willResolveField and serverWillStop life-cycle hooks. #4104). I could be bad and just edit that issue to mention this one too...
I feel like the signal handling change would be OK for a minor release if documented clearly.

glasser · 2020-08-05T06:03:06Z

I put a lot of effort into actually writing tests for signal handling. But for some reason in the context of the test suite, process.kill(process.pid, 'SIGINT') killed the current process even if process.listeners('SIGINT') was non-empty. I did a manual test and it appears to work?

One caveat is that if you have multiple ApolloServers in your process, they'll both begin stop on the signal, but as soon as the first one is done it will re-signal itself and (assuming no other signal handler) kill the process before the other server is done stopping. This is not a regression from how it worked with the existing EngineReportingAgent-specific signal handler, though! If you care about this in your app you should set handleSignals: false and write your own signal handler which stops all your servers and awaits all of them before exiting.

trevor-scheer

A few minor comments within, but this LGTM!

trevor-scheer · 2020-08-06T00:04:37Z

packages/apollo-server-express/src/__tests__/ApolloServer.test.ts

-      const nodeEnv = process.env.NODE_ENV;
-      delete process.env.NODE_ENV;
      const samplePath = '/innerSamplePath';

      const rewiredServer = new ApolloServer({
        typeDefs,
        resolvers,
+        playground: true,


Was this just a hacky workaround to make playground render in a testing env?

I'm thinking about this as the opposite — setting NODE_ENV to mean "render playground" is a hacky workaround, whereas given that this is a test of playground functionality, asking for what you need makes sense. I left in some tests which set NODE_ENV which are explicitly saying "make sure playground is on by default in production" though.

I think we're on the same page. This was a hacky workaround, but I prefer the change you made here. Just confirming my understanding of the change.

trevor-scheer · 2020-08-06T00:22:04Z

packages/apollo-server/src/__tests__/index.test.ts

@@ -25,6 +25,35 @@ describe('apollo-server', () => {
      expect(() => new ApolloServer({ typeDefs, mocks: true })).not.toThrow;
    });

+    it('runs serverWillStart and serverWillStop', async () => {
+      const fn = jest.fn();
+      const oneTick = () => new Promise((res) => process.nextTick(() => res()));


This is neat, TIL. What does the additional tick do for testing that isn't just awaiting a "nothing promise" a la await new Promise(res => res())?

Could also shorten this slightly by doing this:

const oneTick = () => new Promise((res) => process.nextTick(res));

Ah I forgot that Promises always resolve asynchronously! @trevor-scheer yours looks better.

trevor-scheer · 2020-08-06T00:27:06Z

packages/apollo-server-hapi/src/__tests__/ApolloServer.test.ts

@@ -155,6 +155,7 @@ const port = 0;
        server = new ApolloServer({
          typeDefs,
          resolvers,
+          handleSignals: false,


For every test we add this it's because we're removing the test from process.env.NODE_ENV, right? I dunno that I want to see a comment for every one or maybe I do, but the necessity of introducing these may be unclear to a future reader / modifier of these tests.

Yeah. One thought would be to add a helper that does "set NODE_ENV and pass handleSignals: false" but that's hard because all these tests are making different ApolloServer classes? Not sure where to put the comment.

Yeah, I can't say I have a good suggestion here, only food for thought. I don't think this comment is a blocker for lack of a proposed solution on my end.

trevor-scheer · 2020-08-06T00:30:35Z

docs/source/api/apollo-server.md

-   itself. Set this to false to disable. You can manually invoke 'stop()' and
-   'sendReport()' on other signals if you'd like. Note that 'sendReport()'
-   does not run synchronously so it cannot work usefully in an 'exit' handler.
+  For backwards compatibility only; specifying `new ApolloServer({engine: {handleSignals: false}})` is


Can we add a deprecation note similar to the ones immediately above? Most importantly, I'd just like to see the actual word "deprecated" here somewhere.

Will do (next week)

Actually I'd rather this not merge until #4453 merges too, at which point this entire EngineReportingOptions section will be deprecated.

trevor-scheer · 2020-08-06T00:34:50Z

packages/apollo-server-core/src/ApolloServer.ts

+    this.toDispose.add(async () => {
+      await Promise.all(
+        serverListeners.map(({ serverWillStop }) => serverWillStop?.()),
+      );
+    });


I think the additional async/await here is just extraneous (though harmless)

Suggested change

this.toDispose.add(async () => {

await Promise.all(

serverListeners.map(({ serverWillStop }) => serverWillStop?.()),

);

});

this.toDispose.add(() => {

return Promise.all(

serverListeners.map(({ serverWillStop }) => serverWillStop?.()),

);

});

I think harmless is probably a true assessment, particularly since this is not a hot-spot in the code from a performance standpoint, but I think it's worth noting that it does create an additional Promise which needs to be resolved and await always yields to the event loop so it would be processed on the next tick. (Might even add an entry to the stack?) If we were doing it often, there might be memory implications. While some runtimes might (eventually) optimize it out via an optimization known as tail call optimization, that is not an optimization that exists in V8 today and it may never land in many runtimes (See link).

Since this is a shutdown mechanism, we might actually be counting down the ticks until we can terminate, though I don't think anything here would be anything more than a microtask so I don't believe we're actually putting anything on the next full turn of the event loop.

I might say that returning the Promise directly is probably preferred. However, to be very clear, this is just me trying to shed light on Promise execution dynamics, not me asking for a change.

Your suggestion here doesn't typecheck because toDispose is supposed to return ValueOrPromise<void> but when I return Promise.all it ends up with ValueOrPromise<(void | undefined)[]>. (The code is semantically different as I had not written return await.) I guess we could change the typing on toDispose, or I could throw in a .then(() => {}) or something, but the async/await version seems clearer to me than either of those, and this is not performance-critical code. Let me know if you disagree!

Ah, right. .then would work, but not worth changing. Fine with me!

kubejm · 2020-08-06T00:57:07Z

packages/apollo-server-core/src/utils/pluginTestHarness.ts

      logger: logger || console,
      schema,
      schemaHash,
      engine: {},
    });
+    if (maybeListener && maybeListener.serverWillStop) {
+      serverListener = maybeListener;
+    }


Minor, but what are your thoughts of calling maybeListener to pluginInstanceListener? That seems a bit less ambiguous to me.

Changes to maybeServerListener which matches the type better

kubejm · 2020-08-06T01:04:44Z

packages/apollo-server/src/__tests__/index.test.ts

@@ -25,6 +25,35 @@ describe('apollo-server', () => {
      expect(() => new ApolloServer({ typeDefs, mocks: true })).not.toThrow;
    });

+    it('runs serverWillStart and serverWillStop', async () => {
+      const fn = jest.fn();
+      const oneTick = () => new Promise((res) => process.nextTick(() => res()));


Could also shorten this slightly by doing this:

const oneTick = () => new Promise((res) => process.nextTick(res));

kubejm

LGTM, had a couple of minor non-blocking comments

kubejm · 2020-08-06T01:10:15Z

I put a lot of effort into actually writing tests for signal handling. But for some reason in the context of the test suite, process.kill(process.pid, 'SIGINT') killed the current process even if process.listeners('SIGINT') was non-empty. I did a manual test and it appears to work?

Is this something you need help digging into? If so, do you have steps to reproduce?

glasser · 2020-08-06T02:05:03Z

Is this something you need help digging into? If so, do you have steps to reproduce?

I'm not really fully at my computer til Monday, but I was running (via npx jest) a test that basically did nothing but

process.once('SIGINT', () => {});
process.kill(process.pid, 'SIGINT');

and it appeared to kill the whole jest situation. Can you reproduce that or should I try harder?

kubejm · 2020-08-06T03:25:39Z

and it appeared to kill the whole jest situation. Can you reproduce that or should I try harder?

I think I'm reproducing what you're seeing. I added a test to one of the suites (/packages/apollo-server/src/tests/index.test.ts in my case), which is as follows:

it('will not kill jest', () => {
  process.once('SIGINT', () => {});
  process.kill(process.pid, 'SIGINT');
});

It's causing this individual test suite to fail, with an error of "Call retries were exceeded", while all other test suites pass (106 pass).

I'm assuming you're wanting to add a one-time listener to SIGINT to introduce assertions within the associated handler for various test scenarios.

Hopefully, I've reproduced the same issue you're encountering and made the correct assumption about how you're trying to test. I'll continue digging into this a bit tonight, but if I don't figure it out shortly I'll probably need to pick this up tomorrow after work due to it getting late (I'm on the east coast).

Edit:

Assuming I'm on the same page as you, I made a little progress. It seems this could be accomplished by mocking on and kill.

it('will not kill jest', () => {
  let events: Record<string, Function> = {};

  process.on = jest.fn((signal, cb) => {
    events[signal] = cb;
  }) as any;

  process.kill = jest.fn((_, signal: string) => {
    events[signal]();
  });

  process.on('SIGINT', () => {
    expect(1 + 1).toBe(2);
  });

  process.kill(process.pid, 'SIGINT');
});

glasser · 2020-08-06T15:14:44Z

Interesting, I wasn't seeing any error, just an exiting test. Lemme try to reproduce more realistically.

Yeah, we can mock out process, but if we're gonna do that we might as well just provide an argument to the constructor (or maybe a special value you can pass to handleSignals) to replace process for testing instead of mutating the global state at all. But I was hoping to actually manage to test real signal handling.

glasser · 2020-08-06T15:21:20Z

This is what I ran. Note that exit code 130 is SIGINT (128 + 2). console.log isn't working because jest buffers it, so I logged to a temp file. This is on a Mac.

glasser@dsg-mbp 0 08:20:11 ~/Projects/Apollo/apollo-server glasser/apollo-config % p= $ cat packages/apollo-server/src/__tests__/foo.test.ts 
import { appendFileSync } from 'fs';

function log(x: string) {
  appendFileSync('/tmp/test.out', `${x}\n`);
}

it('will not kill jest', () => {
  log(`starting ${process.listenerCount('SIGINT')}`);
  process.once('SIGINT', () => {});
  log(`set up handler ${process.listenerCount('SIGINT')}`);
  process.kill(process.pid, 'SIGINT');
  log(`killed`);
});
glasser@dsg-mbp 0 08:20:22 ~/Projects/Apollo/apollo-server glasser/apollo-config % p= $ >/tmp/test.out; npx jest packages/apollo-server/src/__tests__/foo.test.ts; echo "exit code: $?"; cat /tmp/test.out
ts-jest[versions] (WARN) Version 25.5.4 of jest installed has not been tested with ts-jest. If you're experiencing issues, consider using a supported version (>=26.0.0 <27.0.0-0). Please do not report issues in ts-jest if you are using unsupported versions.

exit code: 130
starting 0
set up handler 1

glasser · 2020-08-06T15:41:49Z

OK, the jest issue occurs with just plain jest, not even ts-jest.

glasser@dsg-mbp 0 08:40:44 /tmp $ git clone https://gist.github.com/cc6e7b429d8c388ac5de970dac805e11.git jest-signals
Cloning into 'jest-signals'...
remote: Enumerating objects: 6, done.        
remote: Counting objects: 100% (6/6), done.        
remote: Compressing objects: 100% (5/5), done.        
remote: Total 6 (delta 0), reused 6 (delta 0), pack-reused 0        
Receiving objects: 100% (6/6), 45.85 KiB | 297.00 KiB/s, done.
glasser@dsg-mbp 0 08:40:49 /tmp $ cd jest-signals
/tmp/jest-signals
glasser@dsg-mbp 0 08:40:54 /tmp/jest-signals master u= p= $ npm it
npm WARN [email protected] No description
npm WARN [email protected] No repository field.

added 507 packages from 346 contributors and audited 507 packages in 4.8s

20 packages are looking for funding
  run `npm fund` for details

found 0 vulnerabilities


> [email protected] test /private/tmp/jest-signals
> >/tmp/test.out; jest; echo exit code $?; cat /tmp/test.out

exit code 130
starting 0
set up handler 1

glasser · 2020-08-06T15:47:48Z

jestjs/jest#10374

kubejm · 2020-08-06T16:53:00Z

Interesting, I wasn't seeing any error, just an exiting test. Lemme try to reproduce more realistically.

Yeah, we can mock out process, but if we're gonna do that we might as well just provide an argument to the constructor (or maybe a special value you can pass to handleSignals) to replace process for testing instead of mutating the global state at all. But I was hoping to actually manage to test real signal handling.

Thanks for the example and logging the issue with jest. I am receiving the same results as you based on your gist within the issue you filed. I'm just running on Ubuntu 18.04 and using Node 14.7.0. I did try with Node 12.18.3 (LTS) and received the same results as well, with your example and my initial test too.

I agree that it would be ideal to test with actual signals rather mock them out, so hopefully we can get to the bottom of what is going on with jest. I suppose at least we have a fallback in the interim.

abernix · 2020-08-18T10:50:07Z

packages/apollo-server-core/src/ApolloServer.ts

+    if (
+      handleSignals === true ||
+      (typeof this.config.engine === 'object' &&
+        this.config.engine.handleSignals === true) ||
+      (process.env.NODE_ENV !== 'test' &&
+        handleSignals !== false &&
+        (typeof this.config.engine !== 'object' ||
+          this.config.engine.handleSignals !== false))
+    ) {


Let's guard for the existence of process at least?

Can you remind me what the best syntax for doing this is?

What would be the use case this would not be present? It seems this should be present due to this being a global object of node, unless there is a name collision within the file.

As for syntax, could do something along the lines of:
if (process && process.env.NODE_ENV...
or (event more safe)
if (process instanceof EventEmitter && process.env.NODE_ENV...

I believe the concern is working towards making as much of Apollo Server as possible not dependent on Node-specific APIs.

Ah! Makes sense, thanks!

I'm going to go with isNodeLike here. (If that's not good enough for your environment you can always specify the option explicitly.)

abernix · 2020-08-18T17:18:02Z

packages/apollo-server-core/src/ApolloServer.ts

+        // Node v10 so we can't use that feature here.
+        const handler: NodeJS.SignalsListener = async () => {
+          await this.stop();
+          process.kill(process.pid, signal);


I realize this originated in the code from before, but I don't understand why we need send the same signal to ourselves in response to having received that signal.

The theory is that we are not trying to prevent the process from dying when asked to, but just let it do some work before dying as requested.

It's not really a primitive that composes well, but I don't know of a better alternative.

Wouldn't that still happen if we didn't call process.kill? I'm fine leaving it, it just seemed cyclical (though not in a way that would prevent the server from shutting down.)

I may be confused, but I'm pretty sure that handling a signal means that the signal is handled and the default behavior of the process exiting doesn't occur.

Hmm, I didn't actually believe that to be the case, but I haven't double clicked on that idea in a while.

abernix · 2020-08-18T17:33:02Z

packages/apollo-server-core/src/ApolloServer.ts

+    this.toDispose.add(async () => {
+      await Promise.all(
+        serverListeners.map(({ serverWillStop }) => serverWillStop?.()),
+      );
+    });


I think harmless is probably a true assessment, particularly since this is not a hot-spot in the code from a performance standpoint, but I think it's worth noting that it does create an additional Promise which needs to be resolved and await always yields to the event loop so it would be processed on the next tick. (Might even add an entry to the stack?) If we were doing it often, there might be memory implications. While some runtimes might (eventually) optimize it out via an optimization known as tail call optimization, that is not an optimization that exists in V8 today and it may never land in many runtimes (See link).

Since this is a shutdown mechanism, we might actually be counting down the ticks until we can terminate, though I don't think anything here would be anything more than a microtask so I don't believe we're actually putting anything on the next full turn of the event loop.

I might say that returning the Promise directly is probably preferred. However, to be very clear, this is just me trying to shed light on Promise execution dynamics, not me asking for a change.

abernix · 2020-08-18T18:35:28Z

packages/apollo-server-core/src/types.ts

@@ -124,6 +124,7 @@ export interface Config extends BaseConfig {
  playground?: PlaygroundConfig;
  gateway?: GraphQLService;
  experimental_approximateDocumentStoreMiB?: number;
+  handleSignals?: boolean;


Keeping in mind all the other signals that we do not handle, I don't know that this name is clear enough at the top-level. It's really more like "handle TERM and INT on Node.js by calling AS's stop method".

Is it critical to ship the signal trapping as part of this implementation?

There was a very real reason why I have mentioned trying to avoid taking an opinionated stance as to what constitutes a shutdown for Apollo Server and self-instrumenting that since process.on is a very Node.js-specific runtime concern. Further, SIGTERM and SIGINT both have default handlers in Node.js that I believe disappear when we provide our own.

Thus far, I've been fine with apollo-engine-reporting using process-things and performing this shutdown since it also uses other Node.js specific bits (like process.hrtime) which render it unusable on non-Node.js runtimes. But hoisting this makes me want to think about it a bit more. For example, I'm not sure what happens on Windows, and Deno — if we ever can ever support it — uses a different mechanism (though I believe we could feature check for its process-equivalent.

I'm not sure we really know what other existing configuration or races against process.on handlers we're putting ourselves in the queue against. I believe those other mechanisms can short-circuit or trap the server's actual shutdown which might leave us running without the polling?

In my mind, to avoid these concerns, it seems plausible that it's better to leave it in the hands of the user and guide/document them accordingly. In Apollo Server 3.x's single package model, we still need to consider what the server lifetime hooks are. For example, maybe there's a different approach where we don't have a server lifetime, but rather use setTimeout (not setInterval!) to schedule work that is intentionally keeping the event loop alive, but not create agent-like-things that need to be stopped?

I do think that stripping a final semi-reliable flush from reporting will have a negative impact on the quality of using Studio, and that requiring it to be 100% opt-in will have a negative impact too. This is going to affect any plugin that's batching information to be sent to any sort of monitoring service, so I think any AS3 plan has to have some solution for this use case.

We've had the AER signal handling on by default for over two years; I'm curious if you've heard any user complaints? I do agree that it doesn't feel bulletproof, but if we haven't had any complaints yet, then it feels "good enough for AS2" to me.

Certainly having it only default to true in Node-like contexts makes sense.

What if the default is "true if Node and Unix (how do I detect this?) and some plugin implements serverWillStop"?

Oh I certainly can agree re naming. stopOnSIGINTAndSIGTERM?

How about handleTerminationSignals, handleTermSignals, stopOnTerminationSignals, or stopOnTermSignals? Not sure if this is too ambiguous or overly verbose. I was just thinking of trying to get the conjunction (e.g. "And") out of the variable name.

I drew inspiration from: https://www.gnu.org/software/libc/manual/html_node/Termination-Signals.html

I like stopOnTerminationSignals.

I don't feel great about my suggestion of "register signal handler if plugins are looking for it", because the gateway is not a plugin and I do want it to be reliably stopped when I implement #4428. I'm going to stick with "any Node-like non-test environment defaults to handling signals".

I'll note that I see zero references to handleSignals in issues on this repo or in our internal Slack which makes me believe that the current default behavior has not been a problem enough for users that we have ended up recommending "oh don't worry just set handleSignals: false" to anyone ever. Similarly looking at GitHub code search (TypeScript, JS) doesn't show any public repos where people are setting this.

While the proposal certainly does broaden the contexts where the signals are handled, it seems like it hasn't been a problem so far. It also feels like a pretty reversible decision: if it causes a problem, then (a) there's the trivial workaround of setting stopOnTerminationSignals: false and (b) we could perhaps adjust the heuristic to be less aggressive about defaulting to true in a future release. However, my suspicion based on our two years of AER signal handling is that it will not be a problem.

Agree we can reverse if it results in a bug. Worth noting, however, that engine has just needed to be disabled in all Node.js environments though because of its reliance on process. It is disabled by default, so this path is, I think, highly more likely to get exercised now.

I assume you mean non-Node.js environments? I'm still not sure I follow, in that the current version of the PR checks isNodeLike before defaulting to signal handling?

Sorry, I did mean non-Node.js! I just mean that any bugs around handleSignals would only be present for those who have enabled Engine/GM/Studio (which I don't think is a majority of users).

abernix · 2020-08-21T16:46:13Z

packages/apollo-server-core/src/ApolloServer.ts

+        // Node v10 so we can't use that feature here.
+        const handler: NodeJS.SignalsListener = async () => {
+          await this.stop();
+          process.kill(process.pid, signal);


Wouldn't that still happen if we didn't call process.kill? I'm fine leaving it, it just seemed cyclical (though not in a way that would prevent the server from shutting down.)

abernix · 2020-08-21T16:48:08Z

packages/apollo-server-core/src/ApolloServer.ts

+    this.toDispose.add(async () => {
+      await Promise.all(
+        serverListeners.map(({ serverWillStop }) => serverWillStop?.()),
+      );
+    });


Ah, right. .then would work, but not worth changing. Fine with me!

abernix · 2020-08-21T16:50:14Z

packages/apollo-server-plugin-base/src/index.ts

  requestDidStart?(
    requestContext: GraphQLRequestContext<TContext>,
  ): GraphQLRequestListener<TContext> | void;
 }

+export interface GraphQLServerListener {
+  serverWillStop?(): ValueOrPromise<void>;


In theory, might a serverDidStart go here?

I assume you mean requestDidStart?

In fact, as you predicted, having requestDidStart not be here is a bit awkward — so far in #4453 the usage reporting plugin is literally defining a function inside the scope of serverWillStart and assigning it to a let that is called by requestDidStart.

I assume you mean requestDidStart?

I meant serverDidStart, but that's based on there being some sort of phase between the two which certainly necessitates a bigger conversation to introduce. (Also a consideration of the actual life-time of this life-cycle.)

In fact, as you predicted, having requestDidStart not be here is a bit awkward — so far in #4453 the usage reporting plugin is literally defining a function inside the scope of serverWillStart and assigning it to a let that is called by requestDidStart.

Yeah, semi-related I guess I am still imaging in the future we might re-consider whether there is a server life-cycle? I'm not sure what to do about that now without supporting both modes (and one being a shorthand for the other)

I meant serverDidStart, but that's based on there being some sort of phase between the two which certainly necessitates a bigger conversation to introduce. (Also a consideration of the actual life-time of this life-cycle.)

I'm confused — this object is the thing returned from serverWillStart?

abernix · 2020-08-21T16:50:34Z

packages/apollo-server/src/__tests__/index.test.ts

+      await server.stop();
+      expect(fn.mock.calls).toEqual([['a'], ['b'], ['c'], ['d']]);
+    });
+


Love this test.

abernix

LGTM, CHANGELOG.md would be great, and an either an addition to https://www.apollographql.com/docs/apollo-server/integrations/plugins/ as well (or an issue to track the need to add it with label: docs)

glasser · 2020-08-21T17:03:24Z

I think this will merge together with #4453 so I'll make sure CHANGELOG is updated as part of that. I updated #4104 to mention serverWillStop.

Fixes #4273. This PR adds a serverWillStop plugin lifecycle hook. The `serverWillStop` hook is on an object optionally returned from a `serverWillStart` hook, similar to `executionDidStart`/`executionDidEnd`. ApolloServerPluginOperationRegistry uses this to stop its agent. The code that installs SIGINT and SIGTERM handlers unless disabled with `handleSignals: false` is hoisted from EngineReportingAgent to ApolloServer itself and renamed to `stopOnTerminationSignals` as a new ApolloServer option. The new implementation also skips installing the signals handlers by default if NODE_ENV=test or if you don't appear to be running in Node (and we update some tests that explicitly set other NODE_ENVs to set handleSignals: false). The main effect on existing code is that on one of these signals, any SubscriptionServer and ApolloGateway will be stopped in addition to any EngineReportingAgent.

glasser · 2020-08-26T00:37:19Z

I'm going to close this PR and allow it to merge as part of #4453.

glasser requested a review from abernix August 4, 2020 08:08

glasser force-pushed the glasser/server-will-stop branch from ff2de06 to 1258777 Compare August 4, 2020 08:11

glasser mentioned this pull request Aug 4, 2020

Introduce serverWillStop life-cycle hook to plugin API #4273

Closed

glasser force-pushed the glasser/server-will-stop branch 2 times, most recently from 2faa90d to 3d61611 Compare August 5, 2020 06:02

glasser mentioned this pull request Aug 5, 2020

Make communicating with Apollo's commercial products into ordinary plugins #4453

Merged

34 tasks

trevor-scheer approved these changes Aug 6, 2020

View reviewed changes

kubejm approved these changes Aug 6, 2020

View reviewed changes

abernix reviewed Aug 18, 2020

View reviewed changes

glasser force-pushed the glasser/server-will-stop branch from 3d61611 to 67dec32 Compare August 19, 2020 20:10

abernix approved these changes Aug 21, 2020

View reviewed changes

abernix added this to the Release 2.17.0 milestone Aug 21, 2020

abernix approved these changes Aug 21, 2020

View reviewed changes

abernix mentioned this pull request Aug 21, 2020

docs: willResolveField and serverWillStop life-cycle hooks. #4104

Closed

glasser force-pushed the glasser/server-will-stop branch from 67dec32 to dc5b8f5 Compare August 24, 2020 21:22

glasser closed this Aug 26, 2020

glasser mentioned this pull request Feb 8, 2021

Make ApolloServer.stop invoke ApolloGateway.stop #4907

Merged

Sytten mentioned this pull request Feb 15, 2021

SIGINT/SIGTERM handling doesn't wait for promises #4931

Closed

github-actions bot locked as resolved and limited conversation to collaborators Apr 21, 2023

trevor-scheer deleted the glasser/server-will-stop branch April 21, 2023 16:57

Add serverWillStop lifecycle hook; call stop() on signals by default #4450

Add serverWillStop lifecycle hook; call stop() on signals by default #4450

Conversation

glasser commented Aug 4, 2020 • edited Loading

glasser commented Aug 4, 2020 • edited Loading

glasser commented Aug 5, 2020 • edited Loading

trevor-scheer left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

glasser Aug 19, 2020 • edited Loading

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

kubejm left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

kubejm commented Aug 6, 2020

glasser commented Aug 6, 2020

kubejm commented Aug 6, 2020 • edited Loading

glasser commented Aug 6, 2020

glasser commented Aug 6, 2020

glasser commented Aug 6, 2020

glasser commented Aug 6, 2020

kubejm commented Aug 6, 2020

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

kubejm Aug 18, 2020 • edited Loading

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

abernix left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

glasser commented Aug 21, 2020

glasser commented Aug 26, 2020

glasser commented Aug 4, 2020 •

edited

Loading

glasser commented Aug 4, 2020 •

edited

Loading

glasser commented Aug 5, 2020 •

edited

Loading

glasser Aug 19, 2020 •

edited

Loading

kubejm commented Aug 6, 2020 •

edited

Loading

kubejm Aug 18, 2020 •

edited

Loading