Skip to content
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

stream: fix stream.finished on Duplex #33133

Closed
wants to merge 11 commits into from

Conversation

ronag
Copy link
Member

@ronag ronag commented Apr 28, 2020

finished would incorrectly believe that a Duplex is already
closed if either the readable or writable side has completed.

Fixes: #33130

Checklist
  • make -j4 test (UNIX), or vcbuild test (Windows) passes
  • tests and/or benchmarks are included
  • documentation is changed or added
  • commit message follows commit guidelines

finished would incorrectly believe that a Duplex is already
closed if either the readable or writable side has completed.

Fixes: nodejs#33130
@ronag ronag added the stream Issues and PRs related to the stream subsystem. label Apr 28, 2020
@ronag ronag requested a review from mcollina April 28, 2020 17:38
@ronag
Copy link
Member Author

ronag commented Apr 28, 2020

@nodejs/streams @mafintosh @szmarczak

@ronag
Copy link
Member Author

ronag commented Apr 28, 2020

fast-track?

@ronag ronag mentioned this pull request Apr 28, 2020
test/parallel/test-stream-finished.js Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
test/parallel/test-stream-finished.js Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
test/parallel/test-stream-finished.js Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
test/parallel/test-stream-finished.js Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
@szmarczak
Copy link
Member

test/parallel/test-stream-finished.js Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
@szmarczak
Copy link
Member

@ronag You need to delay the write to response, so the readable event is emitted after the finish one. See the gist above.

@addaleax addaleax added the fast-track PRs that do not need to wait for 48 hours to land. label Apr 28, 2020
@nodejs-github-bot
Copy link
Collaborator

Copy link
Member

@mcollina mcollina left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

lgtm

(wState && wState.errorEmitted) || (rState && rState.errorEmitted) ||
(wState && wState.finished) || (rState && rState.endEmitted) ||
(rState && stream.req && stream.aborted);
const closed = (
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Can we simplify this a bit? Perhaps at the very least group together similar dependencies, like:

const closed = (
  (wState && (wState.closed || wState.errorEmitted)) ||
  (rState && (rState.closed || rState.errorEmitted || (stream.req && stream.aborted))) ||
  (
    (!writable || (wState && wState.finished)) &&
    (!readable || (rState && rState.endEmitted))
  )
);

Copy link
Member Author

@ronag ronag Apr 29, 2020

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

They are grouped? See below.

Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Unless there is a performance benefit to the above suggestion, I prefer @ronag's grouping because it's easier to read. Though it has more lines, it has less parentheses and the lines are ordered by the properties (e.g. closed) of the states. It reads like "is either state closed, or either state errorEmitted, or ..".

Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

I have not personally benchmarked it, so I cannot say if it is measurable or not. However, it is reducing the number of duplicate checks so V8 should be performing less work.

However, my code suggestion was merely one possibility. I'm not opposed to rearranging the checks in other ways, such as introducing separate if statements, etc.

Copy link
Member Author

@ronag ronag Apr 29, 2020

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

I prefer the current formatting and believe any performance implication here would be negligible in practice. This is not a hot path as far as I'm aware. A future simplification could be to use the ?. operator.

@nodejs-github-bot
Copy link
Collaborator

nodejs-github-bot commented Apr 29, 2020


if (closed) {
// TODO(ronag): Re-throw error if errorEmitted?
// TODO(ronag): Throw premature close as if finished was called?
// before being closed? i.e. if closed but not errored, ended or finished.
// TODO(ronag): Throw some kind of error? Does it make sense
// to call finished() on a "finished" stream?
// TODO(ronag): willEmitClose?
process.nextTick(() => {
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

For bonus points this could also be simplified to process.nextTick(callback); if you want to change it while we're in here. Either way is fine though.

Copy link
Member Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Fixed

Copy link
Member Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

@mscdex Strangely CI fails with your suggestion. Not sure why. Leaving it as is for the purposes of this PR.

Copy link
Member Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Ah, it's because we re-assign callback in the disposer.

@nodejs-github-bot
Copy link
Collaborator

@nodejs-github-bot
Copy link
Collaborator

@ronag
Copy link
Member Author

ronag commented Apr 30, 2020

Landed in d84f131

@ronag ronag closed this Apr 30, 2020
ronag added a commit that referenced this pull request Apr 30, 2020
finished would incorrectly believe that a Duplex is already
closed if either the readable or writable side has completed.

Fixes: #33130

PR-URL: #33133
Reviewed-By: Anna Henningsen <[email protected]>
Reviewed-By: Matteo Collina <[email protected]>
targos pushed a commit that referenced this pull request May 4, 2020
finished would incorrectly believe that a Duplex is already
closed if either the readable or writable side has completed.

Fixes: #33130

PR-URL: #33133
Reviewed-By: Anna Henningsen <[email protected]>
Reviewed-By: Matteo Collina <[email protected]>
@targos targos mentioned this pull request May 4, 2020
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
fast-track PRs that do not need to wait for 48 hours to land. stream Issues and PRs related to the stream subsystem.
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

Async iterator does not work with Duplex streams
7 participants