I discovered an odd behaviour in node's promisify() function and I cannot work out why it's doing what it's doing.
Consider the following script:
#!/usr/bin/env node
/**
* Module dependencies.
*/
var http = require('http')
var promisify = require('util').promisify
;(async () => {
try {
// UNCOMMENT THIS, AND NODE WILL QUIT
// var f = function () { return 'Straight value' }
// var fP = promisify(f)
// await fP()
/**
* Create HTTP server.
*/
var server = http.createServer()
/**
* Listen on provided port, on all network interfaces.
*/
server.listen(3000)
server.on('error', (e) => { console.log('Error:', e); process.exit() })
server.on('listening', () => { console.log('Listening') })
} catch (e) {
console.log('ERROR:', e)
}
})()
console.log('OUT OF THE ASYNC FUNCTION')
It's a straightforward self-invoking function that starts a node server.
And that's fine.
NOW... if you uncomment the lines under "UNCOMMENT THIS", node will quit without running the server.
I KNOW that I am using promisify() on a function that does not call the callback, but returns a value instead. So, I KNOW that that is in itself a problem.
However... why is node just quitting...?
This was really difficult to debug -- especially when you have something more complex that a tiny script.
If you change the function definition to something that actually calls a callback:
var f = function (cb) { setTimeout( () => { return cb( null, 'Straight value') }, 2000) }
Everything works as expected...
UPDATE
Huge simplification:
function f () {
return new Promise(resolve => {
console.log('AH')
})
}
f().then(() => {
console.log('Will this happen...?')
})
Will only print "AH"!
Call promisify() on a non-callback function: “interesting” results in node. Why?
Because you allow node.js to go to the event loop with nothing to do. Since there are no live asynchronous operations in play and no more code to run, node.js realizes that there is nothing else to do and no way for anything else to run so it exits.
When you hit the await and node.js goes back to the event loop, there is nothing keeping node.js running so it exits. There are no timers or open sockets or any of those types of things that keep node.js running so the node.js auto-exit-detection logic says that there's nothing else to do so it exits.
Because node.js is an event driven system, if your code returns back to the event loop and there are no asynchronous operations of any kind in flight (open sockets, listening servers, timers, file I/O operations, other hardware listeners, etc...), then there is nothing running that could ever insert any events in the event queue and the queue is currently empty. As such, node.js realizes that there can never be any way to run any more code in this app so it exits. This is an automatic behavior built into node.js.
A real async operation inside of fp() would have some sort of socket or timer or something open that keeps the process running. But because yours is fake, there's nothing there and nothing to keep node.js running.
If you put a setTimeout() for 1 second inside of f(), you will see that the process exit happens 1 second later. So, the process exit has nothing to do with the promise. It has to do with the fact that you've gone back to the event loop, but you haven't started anything yet that would keep node.js running.
Or, if you put a setInterval() at the top of your async function, you will similarly find that the process does not exit.
So, this would similarly happen if you did this:
var f = function () { return 'Straight value' }
var fP = promisify(f);
fP().then(() => {
// start your server here
});
Or this:
function f() {
return new Promise(resolve => {
// do nothing here
});
}
f().then(() => {
// start your server here
});
The issue isn't with the promisify() operation. It's because you are waiting on a non-existent async operation and thus node.js has nothing to do and it notices there's nothing to do so it auto-exits. Having an open promise with a .then() handler is not something that keeps node.js running. Rather there needs to be some active asynchronous operation (timer, network socket, listening server, file I/O operation underway, etc...) to keep node.js running.
In this particular case, node.js is essentially correct. Your promise will never resolve, nothing else is queued to ever run and thus your server will never get started and no other code in your app will ever run, thus it is not actually useful to keep running. There is nothing to do and no way for your code to actually do anything else.
If you change the function definition to something that actually calls a callback:
That's because you used a timer so node.js has something to actually do while waiting for the promise to resolve. A running timer that has not had .unref() called on it will prevent auto-exit.
Worth reading: How does a node.js process know when to stop?
FYI, you can "turn off" or "bypass" the node.js auto-exit logic by just adding this anywhere in your startup code:
// timer that fires once per day
let foreverInterval = setInterval(() => {
// do nothing
}, 1000 * 60 * 60 * 24);
That always gives node.js something to do so it will never auto-exit. Then when you do want your process to exit, you could either call clearInterval(foreverInterval) or just force things with process.exit(0).
Related
My script performs some asynchronous tasks using promises (with the q library). Running mocha tests works fine. However running the script from the command line does not. The node process immediately dies.
var bot = require('./bot');
bot.getCategories().then(function (categories) {
console.log('Found ' + categories.length + ' categories');
});
My script performs some asynchronous tasks using promises (with the q library). Running mocha tests works fine. However running the script from the command line does not. The node process immediately dies.
This is most certainly a bug, please do report it. The Node.js environment should not exit prematurely while there are things still queued in the event loop.
You should not have to alter your code one bit for this to happen. The Q library (keep in mind there are more modern and native alternatives today) schedules async callbacks on the process.nextTick "microtask" queue. Your bot library presumably also performs IO, both these things should cause node not to terminate.
Node.js will exit when there are no more callbacks to process. You can use setInterval or setTimeout to always keep one so that the process does not automatically exit.
function wait () {
if (!EXITCONDITION)
setTimeout(wait, 1000);
};
wait();
Let's start like this:
'use strict'
const timeoutPromise = (time) => {
return new Promise((resolve, reject) => { setTimeout(() =>
{ console.log('howdy'); resolve('done') }, time) })
}
below we do...
Ending A) - simple promise
console.log('start')
timeoutPromise(1000)
console.log('end')
start and end will appear immediately.
it will take another second to see 'howdy' and get our terminal prompt back. (so in that sense the main script is kept alive, but presumably not what the OP wants...)
Ending B) - waiting for promise return
console.log('start')
return timeoutPromise(1000)
console.log('end')
start will appear, after 1 second 'howdy' will appear. 'end' is unreachable. So here we truly wait for the promises and could do things with them…
Ending C) - then()
console.log('start')
return timeoutPromise(1000).then((result) => {
console.log('end', result)
process.exit(123) // usually 0 for 'ok', just demo!
}
)
start will appear, one seconds goes by and 'howdy', 'end' and 'done' appears. And could be used to send a return value.
$>node haveMainWait.js
start
howdy
end done
$>echo $? // return value of last command
123
Almost certainly you want a .catch() after the .then() in case the promise gets rejected... (and returning a nonzero exit code only in that case)
Instead of a single Promise like timeoutPromises(…) you could of course use Promise.all(…) or an async/await-Function (which has to be wrapped back to promises somewhere on the hierarchical way up... you have that covered here, too).
TL;DR
What is the best way to forcibly keep a Node.js process running, i.e., keep its event loop from running empty and hence keeping the process from terminating? The best solution I could come up with was this:
const SOME_HUGE_INTERVAL = 1 << 30;
setInterval(() => {}, SOME_HUGE_INTERVAL);
Which will keep an interval running without causing too much disturbance if you keep the interval period long enough.
Is there a better way to do it?
Long version of the question
I have a Node.js script using Edge.js to register a callback function so that it can be called from inside a DLL in .NET. This function will be called 1 time per second, sending a simple sequence number that should be printed to the console.
The Edge.js part is fine, everything is working. My only problem is that my Node.js process executes its script and after that it runs out of events to process. With its event loop empty, it just terminates, ignoring the fact that it should've kept running to be able to receive callbacks from the DLL.
My Node.js script:
var
edge = require('edge');
var foo = edge.func({
assemblyFile: 'cs.dll',
typeName: 'cs.MyClass',
methodName: 'Foo'
});
// The callback function that will be called from C# code:
function callback(sequence) {
console.info('Sequence:', sequence);
}
// Register for a callback:
foo({ callback: callback }, true);
// My hack to keep the process alive:
setInterval(function() {}, 60000);
My C# code (the DLL):
public class MyClass
{
Func<object, Task<object>> Callback;
void Bar()
{
int sequence = 1;
while (true)
{
Callback(sequence++);
Thread.Sleep(1000);
}
}
public async Task<object> Foo(dynamic input)
{
// Receives the callback function that will be used:
Callback = (Func<object, Task<object>>)input.callback;
// Starts a new thread that will call back periodically:
(new Thread(Bar)).Start();
return new object { };
}
}
The only solution I could come up with was to register a timer with a long interval to call an empty function just to keep the scheduler busy and avoid getting the event loop empty so that the process keeps running forever.
Is there any way to do this better than I did? I.e., keep the process running without having to use this kind of "hack"?
The simplest, least intrusive solution
I honestly think my approach is the least intrusive one:
setInterval(() => {}, 1 << 30);
This will set a harmless interval that will fire approximately once every 12 days, effectively doing nothing, but keeping the process running.
Originally, my solution used Number.POSITIVE_INFINITY as the period, so the timer would actually never fire, but this behavior was recently changed by the API and now it doesn't accept anything greater than 2147483647 (i.e., 2 ** 31 - 1). See docs here and here.
Comments on other solutions
For reference, here are the other two answers given so far:
Joe's (deleted since then, but perfectly valid):
require('net').createServer().listen();
Will create a "bogus listener", as he called it. A minor downside is that we'd allocate a port just for that.
Jacob's:
process.stdin.resume();
Or the equivalent:
process.stdin.on("data", () => {});
Puts stdin into "old" mode, a deprecated feature that is still present in Node.js for compatibility with scripts written prior to Node.js v0.10 (reference).
I'd advise against it. Not only it's deprecated, it also unnecessarily messes with stdin.
Use "old" Streams mode to listen for a standard input that will never come:
// Start reading from stdin so we don't exit.
process.stdin.resume();
Here is IFFE based on the accepted answer:
(function keepProcessRunning() {
setTimeout(keepProcessRunning, 1 << 30);
})();
and here is conditional exit:
let flag = true;
(function keepProcessRunning() {
setTimeout(() => flag && keepProcessRunning(), 1000);
})();
You could use a setTimeout(function() {""},1000000000000000000); command to keep your script alive without overload.
spin up a nice repl, node would do the same if it didn't receive an exit code anyway:
import("repl").then(repl=>
repl.start({prompt:"\x1b[31m"+process.versions.node+": \x1b[0m"}));
I'll throw another hack into the mix. Here's how to do it with Promise:
new Promise(_ => null);
Throw that at the bottom of your .js file and it should run forever.
I'm writing some tests and would like to be able to start/stop my HTTP server programmatically. Once I stop the HTTP server, I would like the process that started it to exit.
My server is like:
// file: `lib/my_server.js`
var LISTEN_PORT = 3000
function MyServer() {
http.Server.call(this, this.handle)
}
util.inherits(MyServer, http.Server)
MyServer.prototype.handle = function(req, res) {
// code
}
MyServer.prototype.start = function() {
this.listen(LISTEN_PORT, function() {
console.log('Listening for HTTP requests on port %d.', LISTEN_PORT)
})
}
MyServer.prototype.stop = function() {
this.close(function() {
console.log('Stopped listening.')
})
}
The test code is like:
// file: `test.js`
var MyServer = require('./lib/my_server')
var my_server = new MyServer();
my_server.on('listening', function() {
my_server.stop()
})
my_server.start()
Now, when I run node test.js, I get the stdout output that I expect,
$ node test.js
Listening for HTTP requests on port 3000.
Stopped listening.
but I have no idea how to get the process spawned by node test.js to exit and return back to the shell.
Now, I understand (abstractly) that Node keeps running as long as there are bound event handlers for events that it's listening for. In order for node test.js to exit to the shell upon my_server.stop(), do I need to unbind some event? If so, which event and from what object? I have tried modifying MyServer.prototype.stop() by removing all event listeners from it but have had no luck.
I've been looking for an answer to this question for months and I've never yet seen a good answer that doesn't use process.exit. It's quite strange to me that it is such a straightforward request but no one seems to have a good answer for it or seems to understand the use case for stopping a server without exiting the process.
I believe I might have stumbled across a solution. My disclaimer is that I discovered this by chance; it doesn't reflect a deep understanding of what's actually going on. So this solution may be incomplete or maybe not the only way of doing it, but at least it works reliably for me. In order to stop the server, you need to do two things:
Call .end() on the client side of every opened connection
Call .close() on the server
Here's an example, as part of a "tape" test suite:
test('mytest', function (t) {
t.plan(1);
var server = net.createServer(function(c) {
console.log("Got connection");
// Do some server stuff
}).listen(function() {
// Once the server is listening, connect a client to it
var port = server.address().port;
var sock = net.connect(port);
// Do some client stuff for a while, then finish the test
setTimeout(function() {
t.pass();
sock.end();
server.close();
}, 2000);
});
});
After the two seconds, the process will exit and the test will end successfully. I've also tested this with multiple client sockets open; as long as you end all client-side connections and then call .close() on the server, you are good.
http.Server#close
https://nodejs.org/api/http.html#http_server_close_callback
module.exports = {
server: http.createServer(app) // Express App maybe ?
.on('error', (e) => {
console.log('Oops! Something happened', e));
this.stopServer(); // Optionally stop the server gracefully
process.exit(1); // Or violently
}),
// Start the server
startServer: function() {
Configs.reload();
this.server
.listen(Configs.PORT)
.once('listening', () => console.log('Server is listening on', Configs.PORT));
},
// Stop the server
stopServer: function() {
this.server
.close() // Won't accept new connection
.once('close', () => console.log('Server stopped'));
}
}
Notes:
"close" callback only triggers when all leftover connections have finished processing
Trigger process.exit in "close" callback if you want to stop the process too
To cause the node.js process to exit, use process.exit(status) as described in http://nodejs.org/api/process.html#process_process_exit_code
Update
I must have misunderstood.
You wrote: "...but I have no idea how to get the process spawned by node test.js to exit and return back to the shell."
process.exit() does this.
Unless you're using the child_processes module, node.js runs in a single process. It does not "spawn" any further processes.
The fact that node.js continues to run even though there appears to be nothing for it to do is a feature of its "event loop" which continually loops, waiting for events to occur.
To halt the event loop, use process.exit().
UPDATE
After a few small modifications, such as the proper use of module.exports, addition of semicolons, etc., running your example on a Linux server (Fedora 11 - Leonidas) runs as expected and dutifully returns to the command shell.
lib/my_server.js
// file: `lib/my_server.js`
var util=require('util'),
http=require('http');
var LISTEN_PORT=3000;
function MyServer(){
http.Server.call(this, this.handle);
}
util.inherits(MyServer, http.Server);
MyServer.prototype.handle=function(req, res){
// code
};
MyServer.prototype.start=function(){
this.listen(LISTEN_PORT, function(){
console.log('Listening for HTTP requests on port %d.', LISTEN_PORT)
});
};
MyServer.prototype.stop=function(){
this.close(function(){
console.log('Stopped listening.');
});
};
module.exports=MyServer;
test.js
// file: `test.js`
var MyServer = require('./lib/my_server');
var my_server = new MyServer();
my_server.on('listening', function() {
my_server.stop();
});
my_server.start();
Output
> node test.js
Listening for HTTP requests on port 3000.
Stopped listening.
>
Final thoughts:
I've found that the conscientious use of statement-ending semicolons has saved me from a wide variety of pernicious, difficult to locate bugs.
While most (if not all) JavaScript interpreters provide something called "automatic semicolon insertion" (or ASI) based upon a well-defined set of rules (See http://dailyjs.com/2012/04/19/semicolons/ for an excellent description), there are several instances where this feature can inadvertently work against the intent of the programmer.
Unless you are very well versed in the minutia of JavaScript syntax, I would strongly recommend the use of explicit semicolons rather than relying upon ASI's implicit ones.
When I receive an "on" event on the server side, I want to start a task in parallel so it does not block the current event loop thread. Is it possible to do so? How?
I don't want to block the server side loop and I want to be able to send back a message to the client once the task is done, something such as:
client.on('execute-parallel-task', function(msg) {
setTimeout(function() {
// do something that takes a while
client.emit('finished-that-task');
},0);
// this block should return asap, not waiting for the previous call
});
I am not sure if setTimeout will do the job.
It depends what the takes a while is. If it takes a while asynchronously (you can tell because you'll have to register a callback or complete handler), and takes a while because it's blocked on something like IO, rather than CPU bound, it'll inherently be parallel.
If however, its something synchronous or CPU bound, whilst you can use setTimeout, setImmediate etc. to send back a message immediately, once the handler for setTimeout or setImmediate executes, your single thread of execution will be stuck handling that; you're not really fixing the problem, merely deferring it.
To exhibit true parallel behaviour, you'll need to launch a child process. You can use the message passing functionality to notify your worker what work to do, and to notify the parent process once the work is complete.
var cp = require('child_process');
var child = cp.fork(__dirname + '/my-child-worker.js');
n.on('message', function(m) {
if (m === "done") {
// Whey!
}
});
n.send(/* Job id, or something */);
Then in my-child-worker.js;
process.on('message', function (m) {
switch (m) {
case 'get-x':
// blah
break;
// other jobs
}
process.send('done');
});
you do not need the setTimeout.
Your function(msg) will be called once the execute parallel task finishes.
if you are designing a task to run in an async manner, you can look at something like the async lib for node.js
Async Node JS Link
I am working on a websocket oriented node.js server using Socket.IO. I noticed a bug where certain browsers aren't following the correct connect procedure to the server, and the code isn't written to gracefully handle it, and in short, it calls a method to an object that was never set up, thus killing the server due to an error.
My concern isn't with the bug in particular, but the fact that when such errors occur, the entire server goes down. Is there anything I can do on a global level in node to make it so if an error occurs it will simply log a message, perhaps kill the event, but the server process will keep on running?
I don't want other users' connections to go down due to one clever user exploiting an uncaught error in a large included codebase.
You can attach a listener to the uncaughtException event of the process object.
Code taken from the actual Node.js API reference (it's the second item under "process"):
process.on('uncaughtException', function (err) {
console.log('Caught exception: ', err);
});
setTimeout(function () {
console.log('This will still run.');
}, 500);
// Intentionally cause an exception, but don't catch it.
nonexistentFunc();
console.log('This will not run.');
All you've got to do now is to log it or do something with it, in case you know under what circumstances the bug occurs, you should file a bug over at Socket.IO's GitHub page:
https://github.com/LearnBoost/Socket.IO-node/issues
Using uncaughtException is a very bad idea.
The best alternative is to use domains in Node.js 0.8. If you're on an earlier version of Node.js rather use forever to restart your processes or even better use node cluster to spawn multiple worker processes and restart a worker on the event of an uncaughtException.
From: http://nodejs.org/api/process.html#process_event_uncaughtexception
Warning: Using 'uncaughtException' correctly
Note that 'uncaughtException' is a crude mechanism for exception handling intended to be used only as a last resort. The event should not be used as an equivalent to On Error Resume Next. Unhandled exceptions inherently mean that an application is in an undefined state. Attempting to resume application code without properly recovering from the exception can cause additional unforeseen and unpredictable issues.
Exceptions thrown from within the event handler will not be caught. Instead the process will exit with a non-zero exit code and the stack trace will be printed. This is to avoid infinite recursion.
Attempting to resume normally after an uncaught exception can be similar to pulling out of the power cord when upgrading a computer -- nine out of ten times nothing happens - but the 10th time, the system becomes corrupted.
The correct use of 'uncaughtException' is to perform synchronous cleanup of allocated resources (e.g. file descriptors, handles, etc) before shutting down the process. It is not safe to resume normal operation after 'uncaughtException'.
To restart a crashed application in a more reliable way, whether uncaughtException is emitted or not, an external monitor should be employed in a separate process to detect application failures and recover or restart as needed.
I just did a bunch of research on this (see here, here, here, and here) and the answer to your question is that Node will not allow you to write one error handler that will catch every error scenario that could possibly occur in your system.
Some frameworks like express will allow you to catch certain types of errors (when an async method returns an error object), but there are other conditions that you cannot catch with a global error handler. This is a limitation (in my opinion) of Node and possibly inherent to async programming in general.
For example, say you have the following express handler:
app.get("/test", function(req, res, next) {
require("fs").readFile("/some/file", function(err, data) {
if(err)
next(err);
else
res.send("yay");
});
});
Let's say that the file "some/file" does not actually exist. In this case fs.readFile will return an error as the first argument to the callback method. If you check for that and do next(err) when it happens, the default express error handler will take over and do whatever you make it do (e.g. return a 500 to the user). That's a graceful way to handle an error. Of course, if you forget to call next(err), it doesn't work.
So that's the error condition that a global handler can deal with, however consider another case:
app.get("/test", function(req, res, next) {
require("fs").readFile("/some/file", function(err, data) {
if(err)
next(err);
else {
nullObject.someMethod(); //throws a null reference exception
res.send("yay");
}
});
});
In this case, there is a bug if your code that results in you calling a method on a null object. Here an exception will be thrown, it will not be caught by the global error handler, and your node app will terminate. All clients currently executing requests on that service will get suddenly disconnected with no explanation as to why. Ungraceful.
There is currently no global error handler functionality in Node to handle this case. You cannot put a giant try/catch around all your express handlers because by the time your asyn callback executes, those try/catch blocks are no longer in scope. That's just the nature of async code, it breaks the try/catch error handling paradigm.
AFAIK, your only recourse here is to put try/catch blocks around the synchronous parts of your code inside each one of your async callbacks, something like this:
app.get("/test", function(req, res, next) {
require("fs").readFile("/some/file", function(err, data) {
if(err) {
next(err);
}
else {
try {
nullObject.someMethod(); //throws a null reference exception
res.send("yay");
}
catch(e) {
res.send(500);
}
}
});
});
That's going to make for some nasty code, especially once you start getting into nested async calls.
Some people think that what Node does in these cases (that is, die) is the proper thing to do because your system is in an inconsistent state and you have no other option. I disagree with that reasoning but I won't get into a philosophical debate about it. The point is that with Node, your options are lots of little try/catch blocks or hope that your test coverage is good enough so that this doesn't happen. You can put something like upstart or supervisor in place to restart your app when it goes down but that's simply mitigation of the problem, not a solution.
Node.js has a currently unstable feature called domains that appears to address this issue, though I don't know much about it.
I've just put together a class which listens for unhandled exceptions, and when it see's one it:
prints the stack trace to the console
logs it in it's own logfile
emails you the stack trace
restarts the server (or kills it, up to you)
It will require a little tweaking for your application as I haven't made it generic as yet, but it's only a few lines and it might be what you're looking for!
Check it out!
Note: this is over 4 years old at this point, unfinished, and there may now be a better way - I don't know!)
process.on
(
'uncaughtException',
function (err)
{
var stack = err.stack;
var timeout = 1;
// print note to logger
logger.log("SERVER CRASHED!");
// logger.printLastLogs();
logger.log(err, stack);
// save log to timestamped logfile
// var filename = "crash_" + _2.formatDate(new Date()) + ".log";
// logger.log("LOGGING ERROR TO "+filename);
// var fs = require('fs');
// fs.writeFile('logs/'+filename, log);
// email log to developer
if(helper.Config.get('email_on_error') == 'true')
{
logger.log("EMAILING ERROR");
require('./Mailer'); // this is a simple wrapper around nodemailer http://documentup.com/andris9/nodemailer/
helper.Mailer.sendMail("GAMEHUB NODE SERVER CRASHED", stack);
timeout = 10;
}
// Send signal to clients
// logger.log("EMITTING SERVER DOWN CODE");
// helper.IO.emit(SIGNALS.SERVER.DOWN, "The server has crashed unexpectedly. Restarting in 10s..");
// If we exit straight away, the write log and send email operations wont have time to run
setTimeout
(
function()
{
logger.log("KILLING PROCESS");
process.exit();
},
// timeout * 1000
timeout * 100000 // extra time. pm2 auto-restarts on crash...
);
}
);
Had a similar problem. Ivo's answer is good. But how can you catch an error in a loop and continue?
var folder='/anyFolder';
fs.readdir(folder, function(err,files){
for(var i=0; i<files.length; i++){
var stats = fs.statSync(folder+'/'+files[i]);
}
});
Here, fs.statSynch throws an error (against a hidden file in Windows that barfs I don't know why). The error can be caught by the process.on(...) trick, but the loop stops.
I tried adding a handler directly:
var stats = fs.statSync(folder+'/'+files[i]).on('error',function(err){console.log(err);});
This did not work either.
Adding a try/catch around the questionable fs.statSynch() was the best solution for me:
var stats;
try{
stats = fs.statSync(path);
}catch(err){console.log(err);}
This then led to the code fix (making a clean path var from folder and file).
I found PM2 as the best solution for handling node servers, single and multiple instances
One way of doing this would be spinning the child process and communicate with the parent process via 'message' event.
In the child process where the error occurs, catch that with 'uncaughtException' to avoid crashing the application. Mind that Exceptions thrown from within the event handler will not be caught. Once the error is caught safely, send a message like: {finish: false}.
Parent Process would listen to the message event and send the message again to the child process to re-run the function.
Child Process:
// In child.js
// function causing an exception
const errorComputation = function() {
for (let i = 0; i < 50; i ++) {
console.log('i is.......', i);
if (i === 25) {
throw new Error('i = 25');
}
}
process.send({finish: true});
}
// Instead the process will exit with a non-zero exit code and the stack trace will be printed. This is to avoid infinite recursion.
process.on('uncaughtException', err => {
console.log('uncaught exception..',err.message);
process.send({finish: false});
});
// listen to the parent process and run the errorComputation again
process.on('message', () => {
console.log('starting process ...');
errorComputation();
})
Parent Process:
// In parent.js
const { fork } = require('child_process');
const compute = fork('child.js');
// listen onto the child process
compute.on('message', (data) => {
if (!data.finish) {
compute.send('start');
} else {
console.log('Child process finish successfully!')
}
});
// send initial message to start the child process.
compute.send('start');