-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 4.8k
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
[ws] Fix debugging web socket JS code + add test #99240
Closed
Closed
Changes from all commits
Commits
Show all changes
4 commits
Select commit
Hold shift + click to select a range
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
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Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.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 is the tricky part. What would happen if the wait was not there at all ?
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.
We would have sent one after another, so it would be event order:
Adding this delay we are on the boarder of the above scenario and the below:
By "on the boarder" I mean it's random, sometimes we fall into 1st scenario, sometimes into the 2nd.
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.
ask for receive 2
should have no impact on the JS side order of WS events and JS side buffering, right ?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.
Are we trying to get into situation that "ws.state == CLOSE" but the
on_message
for the second message was not called yet ?If that's possible, the current implementation is wrong. But I need to see it before I can believe it 🔍
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.
The time when we ask for receive seems important, when using the debugger, we enter the receiving method before we got "on_message_sent" event but after the WS is closed. That's why I was trying to time it as close in time to closing and sending actions as possible.
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.
Anyway, we could try to stop using ws.state for this and rely on the
on_close
eventThere 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.
Removing the
if (readyState == WebSocket.CLOSED)
block of code fromws_wasm_receive
eliminates the exception during debugging.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.
Does it mean that
is redundant? Managed code does no need setting these bits?
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.
That's good question.
on_close
has similar code and would deliver the resolution if we deleted this.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 is a difference between the demo and the tests: demo does not close the socket, only dispose of it and in case the socket was opened without using
CloseAsync()
, the WebSocket connection will be abruptly terminated. This termination will occur without following the WebSocket protocol's normal closure handshake, potentially leading to unexpected behavior or errors on the client side. Upon correcting the demo code to close the socket (like our tests do), I cannot reproduce the issue with "lost messages". The current, working version of code has theif (readyState == WebSocket.CLOSED)
block removed.