socket.on event gets triggered multiple times - node.js

var express = require('express');
var app = express();
var server = app.listen(3000);
var replyFromBot;
app.use(express.static('public'));
var socket = require('socket.io');
var io = socket(server);
io.sockets.on('connection' , newConnection);
function newConnection(socket) {
console.log(socket.id);
listen = true;
socket.on('Quest' ,reply);
function reply(data) {
replyFromBot = bot.reply("local-user", data);
console.log(socket.id+ " "+replyFromBot);
socket.emit('Ans' , replyFromBot);
}
}
i've created a server based chat-bot application using node.js socket.io and express but the thing is for first time when i call socket.on it gets executed once and for 2nd time it gets executed twice for 3rd thrice and so on i've tackled this issue by setting a flag on my client so that it would display only once. i just wants to know is my code logically correct i mean is this a good code? because if the client ask a question for 10th time than listeners array will have 10+9+8....+1 listeners it would go on increasing depending upon number of questions clients asked. which is not good
i tried using removeListener it just removes listener once and it dosent call back for 2nd time. what do you guys recommend? do i go with this or is there any other way to add the listener when socket.on called and remove it when it gets executed and again add listener for the next time it gets called
thank-you.
client code:
function reply() {
socket.emit('Quest' , Quest);
flag = true;
audio.play();
socket.on('Ans', function(replyFromBot) {
if(flag) {
console.log("hi");
var para = document.createElement("p2");
x = document.getElementById("MiddleBox");
para.appendChild(document.createTextNode(replyFromBot));
x.appendChild(para);
x.scrollTop = x.scrollHeight;
flag = false;
}
});
}

The problem is caused by your client code. Each time you call the reply() function in the client you set up an additional socket.on('Ans', ...) event handler which means they accumulate. You can change that to socket.once() and it will remove itself each time after it get the Ans message. You can then also remove your flag variable.
function reply() {
socket.emit('Quest' , Quest);
audio.play();
// change this to .once()
socket.once('Ans', function(replyFromBot) {
console.log("hi");
var para = document.createElement("p2");
x = document.getElementById("MiddleBox");
para.appendChild(document.createTextNode(replyFromBot));
x.appendChild(para);
x.scrollTop = x.scrollHeight;
});
}
Socket.io is not really built as a request/response system which is what you are trying to use it as. An even better way to implement this would be to use the ack capability that socket.io has so you can get a direct response back to your Quest message you send.
You also need to fix your shared variables replyFromBot and listen on your server because those are concurrency problems waiting to happen as soon as you have multiple users using your server.
Better Solution
A better solution would be to use the ack capability that socket.io has to get a direct response to a message you sent. To do that, you'd change your server to this:
function newConnection(socket) {
console.log(socket.id);
socket.on('Quest', function(data, fn) {
let replyFromBot = bot.reply("local-user", data);
console.log(socket.id+ " "+replyFromBot);
// send ack response
fn(replyFromBot);
});
}
And, change your client code to this:
function reply() {
audio.play();
socket.emit('Quest', Quest, function(replyFromBot) {
console.log("hi");
var para = document.createElement("p2");
x = document.getElementById("MiddleBox");
para.appendChild(document.createTextNode(replyFromBot));
x.appendChild(para);
x.scrollTop = x.scrollHeight;
});
}
Doing it this way, you're hooking into a direct reply from the message so it works as request/response much better than the way you were doing it.

Instead of socket.on('Quest' ,reply); try socket.once('Quest' ,reply);
The bug in your code is that each time newConnection() is called node registers a event listener 'Quest'. So first time newConnection() is called the number of event listener with event 'Quest' is one, the second time function is called, number of event listener increases to two and so on
socket.once() ensures that number of event listener bound to socket with event 'Quest' registered is exactly one

Related

socket.io how to send multiple messages sequentially?

I'm using socket.io like this
Client:
socket.on('response', function(i){
console.log(i);
});
socket.emit('request', whateverdata);
Server:
socket.on('request', function(whateverdata){
for (i=0; i<10000; i++){
console.log(i);
socket.emit('response', i);
}
console.log("done!");
});
I need output like this when putting the two terminals side by side:
Server Client
0 0
1 1
. (etc) .
. .
9998 9998
9999 9999
done!
But instead I am getting this:
Server Client
0
1
. (etc)
.
9998
9999
done!
0
1
.
. (etc)
9998
9999
Why?
Shouldn't Socket.IO / Node emit the message immediately, not wait for the loop to complete before emitting any of them?
Notes:
The for loop is very long and computationally slow.
This question is referring to the socket.io library, not websockets in general.
Due to latency, waiting for confirmation from the client before sending each response is not possible
The order that the messages are received is not important, only that they are received as quickly as possible
The server emits them all in a loop and it takes a small bit of time for them to get to the client and get processed by the client in another process. This should not be surprising.
It is also possible that the single-threaded nature of Javascript in node.js prevents the emits from actually getting sent until your Javascript loop finishes. That would take detailed examination of socket.io code to know for sure if that is an issue. As I said before if you want to 1,1 then 2,2 then 3,3 instead of 1,2,3 sent, then 1,2,3 received you have to write code to force that.
If you want the client to receive the first before the server sends the 2nd, then you have to make the client send a response to the first and have the server not send the 2nd until it receives the response from the first. This is all async networking. You don't control the order of events in different processes unless you write specific code to force a particular sequence.
Also, how do you have client and server in the same console anyway? Unless you are writing out precise timestamps, you wouldn't be able to tell exactly what event came before the other in two separate processes.
One thing you could try is to send 10, then do a setTimeout(fn, 1) to send the next 10 and so on. That would give JS a chance to breathe and perhaps process some other events that are waiting for you to finish to allow the packets to get sent.
There's another networking issue too. By default TCP tries to batch up your sends (at the lowest TCP level). Each time you send, it sets a short timer and doesn't actually send until that timer fires. If more data arrives before the timer fires, it just adds that data to the "pending" packet and sets the timer again. This is referred to as the Nagle's algorithm. You can disable this "feature" on a per-socket basis with socket.setNoDelay(). You have to call that on the actual TCP socket.
I am seeing some discussion that Nagle's algorithm may already be turned off for socket.io (by default). Not sure yet.
In stepping through the process of socket.io's .emit(), there are some cases where the socket is marked as not yet writable. In those cases, the packets are added to a buffer and will be processed "later" on some future tick of the event loop. I cannot see exactly what puts the socket temporarily in this state, but I've definitely seen it happen in the debugger. When it's that way, a tight loop of .emit() will just buffer and won't send until you let other events in the event loop process. This is why doing setTimeout(fn, 0) every so often to keep sending will then let the prior packets process. There's some other event that needs to get processed before socket.io makes the socket writable again.
The issue occurs in the flush() method in engine.io (the transport layer for socket.io). Here's the code for .flush():
Socket.prototype.flush = function () {
if ('closed' !== this.readyState &&
this.transport.writable &&
this.writeBuffer.length) {
debug('flushing buffer to transport');
this.emit('flush', this.writeBuffer);
this.server.emit('flush', this, this.writeBuffer);
var wbuf = this.writeBuffer;
this.writeBuffer = [];
if (!this.transport.supportsFraming) {
this.sentCallbackFn.push(this.packetsFn);
} else {
this.sentCallbackFn.push.apply(this.sentCallbackFn, this.packetsFn);
}
this.packetsFn = [];
this.transport.send(wbuf);
this.emit('drain');
this.server.emit('drain', this);
}
};
What happens sometimes is that this.transport.writable is false. And, when that happens, it does not send the data yet. It will be sent on some future tick of the event loop.
From what I can tell, it looks like the issue may be here in the WebSocket code:
WebSocket.prototype.send = function (packets) {
var self = this;
for (var i = 0; i < packets.length; i++) {
var packet = packets[i];
parser.encodePacket(packet, self.supportsBinary, send);
}
function send (data) {
debug('writing "%s"', data);
// always creates a new object since ws modifies it
var opts = {};
if (packet.options) {
opts.compress = packet.options.compress;
}
if (self.perMessageDeflate) {
var len = 'string' === typeof data ? Buffer.byteLength(data) : data.length;
if (len < self.perMessageDeflate.threshold) {
opts.compress = false;
}
}
self.writable = false;
self.socket.send(data, opts, onEnd);
}
function onEnd (err) {
if (err) return self.onError('write error', err.stack);
self.writable = true;
self.emit('drain');
}
};
Where you can see that the .writable property is set to false when some data is sent until it gets confirmation that the data has been written. So, when rapidly sending data in a loop, it may not be letting the event come through that signals that the data has been successfully sent. When you do a setTimeout() to let some things in the event loop get processed that confirmation event comes through and the .writable property gets set to true again so data can again be sent immediately.
To be honest, socket.io is built of so many abstract layers across dozens of modules that it's very difficult code to debug or analyze on GitHub so it's hard to be sure of the exact explanation. I did definitely see the .writable flag as false in the debugger which did cause a delay so this seems like a plausible explanation to me. I hope this helps.

node process can not find setTimeout object in subsequent requests

I am trying to clear timeout set using setTimeout method by node process, in subsequent requests (using express). So, basically, I set timeout when our live stream event starts (get notified by webhook) and aim to stop this for guest users after one hour. One hour is being calculated via setTimeout, which works fine so far. However, if event gets stopped before one hour, I need to clear the timeout. I am trying to use clearTimeOut but it just can't find same variable.
// Event starts
var setTimeoutIds = {};
var val = req.body.eventId;
setTimeoutIds[val] = setTimeout(function() {
req.app.io.emit('disable_for_guest',req.body);
live_events.update({event_id:req.body.eventId},{guest_visibility:false},function(err,data){
//All ok
});
}, disable_after_milliseconds);
console.log(setTimeoutIds);
req.app.io.emit('session_started',req.body);
When event ends:
try{
var event_id = req.body.eventId;
clearTimeout(setTimeoutIds[event_id]);
delete setTimeoutIds[event_id];
}catch(e){
console.log('Event ID could not be removed' + e);
}
req.app.io.emit('event_ended',req.body);
Output :
Output
You are defining setTimeoutIds in the scope of the handler. You must define it at module level.
var setTimeoutIds = {};
router.post('/webhook', function(req, res) {
...
That makes the variable available until the next restart of the server.
Note: this approach only works as long as you only have a single server with a single node process serving your application. Once you go multi-process and/or multi-server, you need a completely different approach.

Socket.IO server throttling a fast client

I have a server that uses socket.io and I need a way of throttling a client that is sending the server data too quickly. The server exposes both a TCP interface and a socket.io interface - with the TCP server (from the net module) I can use socket.pause() and socket.resume(), and this effectively throttles the client. But with socket.io's socket class there are no pause() and resume() methods.
What would be the easiest way of getting feedback to a client that it is overwhelming the server and needs to slow down? I liked socket.pause() and socket.resume() because it didn't require any additional code on the client-side - backup the TCP socket and things naturally slow down. Any equivalent for socket.io?
Update: I provide an API to interact with the server (there is currently a python version which runs over TCP and a JavaScript version which uses socket.io). So I don't have any real control over what the client does. Which is why using socket.pause() and socket.resume() is so great - backing up the TCP stream slows the python client down no matter what it tries to do. I'm looking for an equivalent for a JavaScript client.
With enough digging I found this:
this.manager.transports[this.id].socket.pause();
and
this.manager.transports[this.id].socket.resume();
Granted this probably won't work if the socket.io connection isn't a web sockets connection, and may break in a future update, but for now I'm going to go with it. When I get some time in the future I'll probably change it to the QUOTA_EXCEEDED solution that Pascal proposed.
Here is a dirty way to achieve throttling. Although this is a old post; some people may benefit from it:
First register a middleware:
io.on("connection", function (socket) {
socket.use(function (packet, next) {
if (throttler.canBeServed(socket, packet)) {
next();
}
});
//You other code ..
});
canBeServed is a simple throttler as seen below:
function canBeServed(socket, packet) {
if (socket.markedForDisconnect) {
return false;
}
var previous = socket.lastAccess;
var now = Date.now();
if (previous) {
var diff = now - previous;
//Check diff and disconnect if needed.
if (diff < 50) {
socket.markedForDisconnect = true;
setTimeout(function () {
socket.disconnect(true);
}, 1000);
return false;
}
}
socket.lastAccess = now;
return true;
}
You can use process.hrtime() instead of Date.time().
If you have a callback on your server somewhere which normally sends back the response to your client, you could try and change it like this:
before:
var respond = function (res, callback) {
res.send(data);
};
after
var respond = function (res, callback) {
setTimeout(function(){
res.send(data);
}, 500); // or whatever delay you want.
};
Looks like you should slow down your clients. If one client can send too fast for your server to keep up, this is not going to go very well with 100s of clients.
One way to do this would be have the client wait for the reply for each emit before emitting anything else. This way the server can control how fast the client can send by only answering when ready for example, or only answer after a set time.
If this is not enough, when a client exceeded x requests per second, start replying with something like QUOTA_EXCEEDED error, and ignore the data they send in. This will force external developers to make their app behave as you want them to do.
As another suggestion, I would propose a solution like this:
It is common for MySQL to get a large amount of requests which would take longer time to apply than the rate the requests coming in.
The server can record the requests in a table in db assuming this action is fast enough for the rate the requests are coming in and then process the queue at a normal rate for the server to sustain. This buffer system will allow the server to run slow but still process all the requests.
But if you want something sequential, then the request callback should be verified before the client can send another request. In this case, there should be a server ready flag. If the client is sending request while the flag is still red, then there can be a message telling the client to slow down.
simply wrap your client emitter into a function like below
let emit_live_users = throttle(function () {
socket.emit("event", "some_data");
}, 2000);
using use a throttle function like below
function throttle(fn, threshold) {
threshold = threshold || 250;
var last, deferTimer;
return function() {
var now = +new Date, args = arguments;
if(last && now < last + threshold) {
clearTimeout(deferTimer);
deferTimer = setTimeout(function() {
last = now;
fn.apply(this, args);
}, threshold);
} else {
last = now;
fn.apply(this, args);
}
}
}

How do I shutdown a Node.js http(s) server immediately?

I have a Node.js application that contains an http(s) server.
In a specific case, I need to shutdown this server programmatically. What I am currently doing is calling its close() function, but this does not help, as it waits for any kept alive connections to finish first.
So, basically, this shutdowns the server, but only after a minimum wait time of 120 seconds. But I want the server to shutdown immediately - even if this means breaking up with currently handled requests.
What I can not do is a simple
process.exit();
as the server is only part of the application, and the rest of the application should remain running. What I am looking for is conceptually something such as server.destroy(); or something like that.
How could I achieve this?
PS: The keep-alive timeout for connections is usually required, hence it is not a viable option to decrease this time.
The trick is that you need to subscribe to the server's connection event which gives you the socket of the new connection. You need to remember this socket and later on, directly after having called server.close(), destroy that socket using socket.destroy().
Additionally, you need to listen to the socket's close event to remove it from the array if it leaves naturally because its keep-alive timeout does run out.
I have written a small sample application you can use to demonstrate this behavior:
// Create a new server on port 4000
var http = require('http');
var server = http.createServer(function (req, res) {
res.end('Hello world!');
}).listen(4000);
// Maintain a hash of all connected sockets
var sockets = {}, nextSocketId = 0;
server.on('connection', function (socket) {
// Add a newly connected socket
var socketId = nextSocketId++;
sockets[socketId] = socket;
console.log('socket', socketId, 'opened');
// Remove the socket when it closes
socket.on('close', function () {
console.log('socket', socketId, 'closed');
delete sockets[socketId];
});
// Extend socket lifetime for demo purposes
socket.setTimeout(4000);
});
// Count down from 10 seconds
(function countDown (counter) {
console.log(counter);
if (counter > 0)
return setTimeout(countDown, 1000, counter - 1);
// Close the server
server.close(function () { console.log('Server closed!'); });
// Destroy all open sockets
for (var socketId in sockets) {
console.log('socket', socketId, 'destroyed');
sockets[socketId].destroy();
}
})(10);
Basically, what it does is to start a new HTTP server, count from 10 to 0, and close the server after 10 seconds. If no connection has been established, the server shuts down immediately.
If a connection has been established and it is still open, it is destroyed.
If it had already died naturally, only a message is printed out at that point in time.
I found a way to do this without having to keep track of the connections or having to force them closed. I'm not sure how reliable it is across Node versions or if there are any negative consequences to this but it seems to work perfectly fine for what I'm doing. The trick is to emit the "close" event using setImmediate right after calling the close method. This works like so:
server.close(callback);
setImmediate(function(){server.emit('close')});
At least for me, this ends up freeing the port so that I can start a new HTTP(S) service by the time the callback is called (which is pretty much instantly). Existing connections stay open. I'm using this to automatically restart the HTTPS service after renewing a Let's Encrypt certificate.
If you need to keep the process alive after closing the server, then Golo Roden's solution is probably the best.
But if you're closing the server as part of a graceful shutdown of the process, you just need this:
var server = require('http').createServer(myFancyServerLogic);
server.on('connection', function (socket) {socket.unref();});
server.listen(80);
function myFancyServerLogic(req, res) {
req.connection.ref();
res.end('Hello World!', function () {
req.connection.unref();
});
}
Basically, the sockets that your server uses will only keep the process alive while they're actually serving a request. While they're just sitting there idly (because of a Keep-Alive connection), a call to server.close() will close the process, as long as there's nothing else keeping the process alive. If you need to do other things after the server closes, as part of your graceful shutdown, you can hook into process.on('beforeExit', callback) to finish your graceful shutdown procedures.
The https://github.com/isaacs/server-destroy library provides an easy way to destroy() a server with the behavior desired in the question (by tracking opened connections and destroying each of them on server destroy, as described in other answers).
As others have said, the solution is to keep track of all open sockets and close them manually. My node package killable can do this for you. An example (using express, but you can call use killable on any http.server instance):
var killable = require('killable');
var app = require('express')();
var server;
app.route('/', function (req, res, next) {
res.send('Server is going down NOW!');
server.kill(function () {
//the server is down when this is called. That won't take long.
});
});
var server = app.listen(8080);
killable(server);
Yet another nodejs package to perform a shutdown killing connections: http-shutdown, which seems reasonably maintained at the time of writing (Sept. 2016) and worked for me on NodeJS 6.x
From the documentation
Usage
There are currently two ways to use this library. The first is explicit wrapping of the Server object:
// Create the http server
var server = require('http').createServer(function(req, res) {
res.end('Good job!');
});
// Wrap the server object with additional functionality.
// This should be done immediately after server construction, or before you start listening.
// Additional functionailiy needs to be added for http server events to properly shutdown.
server = require('http-shutdown')(server);
// Listen on a port and start taking requests.
server.listen(3000);
// Sometime later... shutdown the server.
server.shutdown(function() {
console.log('Everything is cleanly shutdown.');
});
The second is implicitly adding prototype functionality to the Server object:
// .extend adds a .withShutdown prototype method to the Server object
require('http-shutdown').extend();
var server = require('http').createServer(function(req, res) {
res.end('God job!');
}).withShutdown(); // <-- Easy to chain. Returns the Server object
// Sometime later, shutdown the server.
server.shutdown(function() {
console.log('Everything is cleanly shutdown.');
});
My best guess would be to kill the connections manually (i.e. to forcibly close it's sockets).
Ideally, this should be done by digging into the server's internals and closing it's sockets by hand. Alternatively, one could run a shell-command that does the same (provided the server has proper privileges &c.)
I have answered a variation of "how to terminate a HTTP server" many times on different node.js support channels. Unfortunately, I couldn't recommend any of the existing libraries because they are lacking in one or another way. I have since put together a package that (I believe) is handling all the cases expected of graceful HTTP server termination.
https://github.com/gajus/http-terminator
The main benefit of http-terminator is that:
it does not monkey-patch Node.js API
it immediately destroys all sockets without an attached HTTP request
it allows graceful timeout to sockets with ongoing HTTP requests
it properly handles HTTPS connections
it informs connections using keep-alive that server is shutting down by setting a connection: close header
it does not terminate the Node.js process
Usage:
import http from 'http';
import {
createHttpTerminator,
} from 'http-terminator';
const server = http.createServer();
const httpTerminator = createHttpTerminator({
server,
});
await httpTerminator.terminate();
const Koa = require('koa')
const app = new Koa()
let keepAlive = true
app.use(async (ctx) => {
let url = ctx.request.url
// destroy socket
if (keepAlive === false) {
ctx.response.set('Connection', 'close')
}
switch (url) {
case '/restart':
ctx.body = 'success'
process.send('restart')
break;
default:
ctx.body = 'world-----' + Date.now()
}
})
const server = app.listen(9011)
process.on('message', (data, sendHandle) => {
if (data == 'stop') {
keepAlive = false
server.close();
}
})
process.exit(code); // code 0 for success and 1 for fail

How can i handle Close event in Socket.io?

I'm making simple online game which based on Web.
the game uses Socket.io for netwoking each other.
but I encountered the problem.
think about following situation .
I ran Socket.io server.
one player making the room , and other player join the room.
they played game some time ..
but one player so angry and close the game tab.
in this situation , how can I get the event which one client have been closed the browser in server-side ?
according to googling , peoples say like this : "use browser-close event like onBeforeUnload"
but I know that All browser don't support onBeforeUnload event. so i want solution about
checking the client disconnection event in SERVER SIDE.
in Socket.io ( nodeJS ) server-side console , when client's connection closed , the console say like following :
debug - discarding transport
My nodeJS version is 0.4.10 and Socket.io version is 0.8.7. and both are running on Linux.
Anyone can help please ?
shortend codes are here :
var io = require ( "socket.io" ).listen ( 3335 );
io.sockets.on ( "connection" , function ( socket )
{
socket.on ( "req_create_room" , function ( roomId )
{
var socketInstance = io
.of ( "/" + roomId )
.on ( "connection" , function ( sock )
{
sock.on ( "disconnect" , function ()
{
// i want this socket data always displayed...
// but first-connected-client doesn't fire this event ..
console.log ( sock );
}
});
});
});
Update: I created a blog post for this solution. Any feedback is welcome!
I recommend using the 'sync disconnect on unload' option for Socket IO. I was having similar problems, and this really helped me out.
On the client:
var socket = io.connect(<your_url>, {
'sync disconnect on unload': true });
No need to wire in any unload or beforeunload events. Tried this out in several browsers, and its worked perfectly so far.
There's an event disconnect which fires whenever a socket.io connection dies (note that you need this, because you may still have a wep page open, but what if your internet connection dies?). Try this:
var io = require('socket.io').listen(80);
io.sockets.on('connection', function (socket) {
socket.on('disconnect', function () {
io.sockets.emit('user disconnected');
});
});
at your server. Taken from Socket.IO website.
//EDIT
So I looked at your code and did some tests at my place. I obtained the very same results as you and here's my explanation. You are trying to make Socket.IO very dynamic by dynamically forcing it to listen to different urls (which are added at runtime). But when the first connection is made, at that moment the server does not listen to the other url. It seems that exactly at that point (when connection is accepted) the disconnect handler is set for the first connection and it is not updated later (note that Socket.IO does not create new connections when you call io.connect many times at the client side). All in all this seems to be a bug! Or perhaps there is some fancy explanation why this behaviour should be as it is but I do not know it.
Let me tell you some other things. First of all this dynamical creation of listeners does not seem to be a good way. In my opinion you should do the following: store the existing rooms and use one url for all of them. Hold the ID of a room and when you emit for example message event from client add the ID of a room to the data and handle this with one message handler at the server. I think you get the idea. Push the dynamic part into the data, not urls. But I might be wrong, at least that's my opinion.
Another thing is that the code you wrote seems to be bad. Note that running .on('connection', handler) many times will make it fire many times. Handlers stack one onto another, they do not replace each other. So this is how I would implement this:
var io = require("socket.io").listen(app);
var roomIds = [];
function update_listeners(id) {
io.of("/"+id).on("connection", function(socket) {
console.log("I'm in room " + id);
socket.on("disconnect", function(s) {
console.log("Disconnected from " + roomId);
});
});
}
var test = io.sockets.on("connection", function(socket) {
console.log("I'm in global connection handler");
socket.on("req_create_room", function(data) {
if (roomIds.indexOf(data.roomId) == -1 ) {
roomIds.push(data.roomId);
update_listeners(data.roomId);
}
test.emit("room_created", {ok:true});
});
socket.on("disconnect", function(s) {
console.log("Disconnected from global handler");
});
});
Keep in mind that the problem with creating connections before the listeners are defined will still occure.

Resources