Stop flowing and then abort if a stream is cancelled #27405
Merged
Conversation
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
facebook-github-bot
added
CLA Signed
React Core Team
sebmarkbage
commented
Sep 22, 2023
| @@ -78,7 +79,10 @@ function renderToReadableStream( | |||
| pull: (controller): ?Promise<void> => { | |||
| startFlowing(request, controller); | |||
| }, | |||
| cancel: (reason): ?Promise<void> => {}, | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
In Flight we weren't even cancelling it at all in this case.
This was referenced Sep 22, 2023
…rrors Otherwise this will be a lingering task which means we might try to abort it when we close which would log an extra error but we've already errored.
sebmarkbage
force-pushed
the
postponeerrors
branch
from
b92a159
to
89b4b50
Compare
gnoff
approved these changes
Sep 22, 2023
github-actions bot
pushed a commit
that referenced
this pull request
Sep 22, 2023
We currently abort a stream either it's explicitly told to abort (e.g. by an abortsignal). In this case we still finish writing what we have as well as instructions for the client about what happened so it can trigger fallback cases and log appropriately. We also abort a request if the stream itself cancels. E.g. if you can't write anymore. In this case we should not write anything to the outgoing stream since it's supposed to be closed already now. However, we should still abort the request so that more work isn't performed and so that we can log the reason for it to the onError callback. We should also not do any work after aborting. There we need to stop the "flow" of bytes - so I call stopFlowing in the cancel case before aborting. The tests were testing this case but we had changed the implementation to only start flowing at initial read (pull) instead of start like we used to. As a result, it was no longer covering this case. We have to call reader.read() in the tests to start the flow so that we need to cancel it. We also were missing a final assertion on the error logs and since we were tracking them explicitly the extra error was silenced. DiffTrain build for [d9e00f7](d9e00f7)
|
when are you guys publishing the newer release ? I have this problem right now in my nextjs app whenever I refresh my app twice on the browser |
kodiakhq bot
pushed a commit
to vercel/next.js
that referenced
this pull request
Sep 26, 2023
### React upstream changes - facebook/react#27417 - facebook/react#27408 - facebook/react#27409 - facebook/react#27405 - facebook/react#27375 - facebook/react#27407 - facebook/react#27365 - facebook/react#27399 - facebook/react#27395 - facebook/react#27394 - facebook/react#27397 - facebook/react#26992 - facebook/react#27388 - facebook/react#27373 - facebook/react#27332
EdisonVan
pushed a commit
to EdisonVan/react
that referenced
this pull request
Apr 15, 2024
We currently abort a stream either it's explicitly told to abort (e.g. by an abortsignal). In this case we still finish writing what we have as well as instructions for the client about what happened so it can trigger fallback cases and log appropriately. We also abort a request if the stream itself cancels. E.g. if you can't write anymore. In this case we should not write anything to the outgoing stream since it's supposed to be closed already now. However, we should still abort the request so that more work isn't performed and so that we can log the reason for it to the onError callback. We should also not do any work after aborting. There we need to stop the "flow" of bytes - so I call stopFlowing in the cancel case before aborting. The tests were testing this case but we had changed the implementation to only start flowing at initial read (pull) instead of start like we used to. As a result, it was no longer covering this case. We have to call reader.read() in the tests to start the flow so that we need to cancel it. We also were missing a final assertion on the error logs and since we were tracking them explicitly the extra error was silenced.
bigfootjon
pushed a commit
that referenced
this pull request
Apr 18, 2024
We currently abort a stream either it's explicitly told to abort (e.g. by an abortsignal). In this case we still finish writing what we have as well as instructions for the client about what happened so it can trigger fallback cases and log appropriately. We also abort a request if the stream itself cancels. E.g. if you can't write anymore. In this case we should not write anything to the outgoing stream since it's supposed to be closed already now. However, we should still abort the request so that more work isn't performed and so that we can log the reason for it to the onError callback. We should also not do any work after aborting. There we need to stop the "flow" of bytes - so I call stopFlowing in the cancel case before aborting. The tests were testing this case but we had changed the implementation to only start flowing at initial read (pull) instead of start like we used to. As a result, it was no longer covering this case. We have to call reader.read() in the tests to start the flow so that we need to cancel it. We also were missing a final assertion on the error logs and since we were tracking them explicitly the extra error was silenced. DiffTrain build for commit d9e00f7.
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
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.
We currently abort a stream either it's explicitly told to abort (e.g. by an abortsignal). In this case we still finish writing what we have as well as instructions for the client about what happened so it can trigger fallback cases and log appropriately.
We also abort a request if the stream itself cancels. E.g. if you can't write anymore. In this case we should not write anything to the outgoing stream since it's supposed to be closed already now. However, we should still abort the request so that more work isn't performed and so that we can log the reason for it to the onError callback.
We should also not do any work after aborting.
There we need to stop the "flow" of bytes - so I call stopFlowing in the cancel case before aborting.
The tests were testing this case but we had changed the implementation to only start flowing at initial read (pull) instead of start like we used to. As a result, it was no longer covering this case. We have to call reader.read() in the tests to start the flow so that we need to cancel it.
We also were missing a final assertion on the error logs and since we were tracking them explicitly the extra error was silenced.