In a Node server I have a series of streams piped together. Say, for example:
streamA.pipe(streamB).pipe(streamC)
Eventually streamA completes and at that point I want to switch the downstreams to another source:
streamD.pipe(streamB).pipe(streamC)
But when I try to do this I get the following error:
Error: write after end
How can I prevent streamA from closing my downstreams? Or how can I open my downstreams back up to switch them over to streamD?
Also, my use case requires that I wait until streamA end. I can't switch the streams prematurely.
Been googling the same thing, you can just add
streamA.pipe(streamB, {end: false}).pipe(streamC, {end: false})
In my case I found that if I unpipe() my downstream when I receive the 'end' event then the upstream won't have a chance to close my downstream and everything is Ok.
streamA.on('end', function() {
downstreams.forEach(downstream => {
streamA.unpipe(downstream);
});
}
If there is a more canonical solution then please feel free to post it.
Related
I am trying to stream some audio to my server and then stream it to a service specified by the user, the user will be providing me with someHostName, which can sometimes not support that type of request.
My problem is that when it happens the clientRequest.on('end',..) is never fired, I think it's because it's being piped to someHostReq which gets messed up when someHostName is "wrong".
My question is:
Is there anyway that I can still have clientRequest.on('end',..) fired even when the stream clientRequest pipes to has something wrong with it?
If not: how do I detect that something wrong happened with someHostReq "immediately"? someHostReq.on('error') doesn't fire up except after some time.
code:
someHostName = 'somexample.com'
function checkIfPaused(request){//every 1 second check .isPaused
console.log(request.isPaused()+'>>>>');
setTimeout(function(){checkIfPaused(request)},1000);
}
router.post('/', function (clientRequest, clientResponse) {
clientRequest.on('data', function (chunk) {
console.log('pushing data');
});
clientRequest.on('end', function () {//when done streaming audio
console.log('im at the end');
}); //end clientRequest.on('end',)
options = {
hostname: someHostName, method: 'POST', headers: {'Transfer-Encoding': 'chunked'}
};
var someHostReq = http.request(options, function(res){
var data = ''
someHostReq.on('data',function(chunk){data+=chunk;});
someHostReq.on('end',function(){
console.log('someHostReq.end is called');
});
});
clientRequest.pipe(someHostReq);
checkIfPaused(clientRequest);
});
output:
in the case of a correct hostname:
pushing data
.
.
pushing data
false>>>
pushing data
.
.
pushing data
pushing data
false>>>
pushing data
.
.
pushing data
console.log('im at the end');
true>>>
//continues to be true, that's fine
in the case of a wrong host name:
pushing data
.
.
pushing data
false>>>>
pushing data
.
.
pushing data
pushing data
false>>>>
pushing data
.
.
pushing data
true>>>>
true>>>>
true>>>>
//it stays true and clientRequest.on('end') is never called
//even tho the client is still streaming data, no more "pushing data" appears
if you think my question is a duplicate:
it's not the same as this: node.js http.request event flow - where did my END event go? , the OP was just making a GET instead of a POST
it's not the same as this: My http.createserver in node.js doesn't work? , the stream was in paused mode because the none of the following happened:
You can switch to flowing mode by doing any of the following:
Adding a 'data' event handler to listen for data.
Calling the resume() method to explicitly open the flow.
Calling the pipe() method to send the data to a Writable.
source: https://nodejs.org/api/stream.html#stream_class_stream_readable
it's not the same as this: Node.js response from http request not calling 'end' event without including 'data' event , he just forgot to add the .on('data',..)
The behaviour in case of a wrong host name seems some problem with buffers, if the destination stream buffer is full (because someHost is not getting the sended chunks of data) the pipe will not continue to read the origin stream because pipe automatically manage the flow. As pipe is not reading the origin stream you never reach 'end' event.
Is there anyway that I can still have clientRequest.on('end',..) fired
even when the stream clientRequest pipes to has something wrong with
it?
The 'end' event will not fire unless the data is completely consumed. To get 'end' fired with a paused stream you need to call resume() (unpiping first from wrong hostname or you will fall in buffer stuck again) to set the steam into flowMode again or read() to the end.
But how to detect when I should do any of the above?
someHostReq.on('error') is the natural place but if it takes too long to fire up:
First try to set a low timeout request (less than someHostReq.on('error') takes to trigger, as seems too much time for you) request.setTimeout(timeout[, callback]) and check if it doesn't fail when correct hostname. If works, just use the callback or timeout event to detect when the server timeOut and use one of the techniques above to reach to the end.
If timeOut solution fails or doesn't fits your requirements you have to play with flags in clientRequest.on('data'), clientRequest.on('end') and/or clienteRequest.isPaused to guess when you are stuck by the buffer. When you think you are stuck just apply one of the techniques above to reach to the end of the stream. Luckily it takes less time to detect buffer stuck than wait for someHostReq.on('error') (maybe two request.isPaused() = true without reach 'data' event is enought to determine if you are stuck).
How do I detect that something wrong happened with someHostReq
"immediately"? someHostReq.on('error') doesn't fire up except after
some time.
Errors triggers when triggers. You can not "immediately" detect it. ¿Why not just send a prove beacon request to check support before piping streams? Some kind of:
"Cheking service specified by the user..." If OK -> Pipe user request stream to service OR FAIL -> Notify user about wrong service.
(I am using node-amqp and rabbitmq server.)
I am trying to guess why I have a close event if something goes wrong. For example, If I try to open a a connection to a queue (with bad parameters) I receive an error event. That it is perfect ok.
But, after any error I will receive also a close connection (in that case, maybe because close the failed socket to the queue). And after that, auto-reconnect and I receive the (initial) ready event.
The problem:
connection.on('ready', function() {
do_a_lot_of_things
}).on(error, function(error){
solve_the_problem
});
if something goes wrong, I receive the error, but then "ready" event and it will re do_a_lot_of_things. Is my approach wrong?
best regards
You can use connection.once('ready', function () { … }) (see the documentation), which will execute the handler only on the first event.
Consider:
node -e "setTimeout(function() {console.log('abc'); }, 2000);"
This will actually wait for the timeout to fire before the program exits.
I am basically wondering if this means that node is intended to wait for all timeouts to complete before quitting.
Here is my situation. My client has a node.js server he's gonna run from Windows with a Shortcut icon. If the node app encounters an exceptional condition, it will typically instantly exit, not leaving enough time to see in the console what the error was, and this is bad.
My approach is to wrap the entire program with a try catch, so now it looks like this: try { (function () { ... })(); } catch (e) { console.log("EXCEPTION CAUGHT:", e); }, but of course this will also cause the program to immediately exit.
So at this point I want to leave about 10 seconds for the user to take a peek or screenshot of the exception before it quits.
I figure I should just use blocking sleep() through the npm module, but I discovered in testing that setting a timeout also seems to work. (i.e. why bother with a module if something builtin works?) I guess the significance of this isn't big, but I'm just curious about whether it is specified somewhere that node will actually wait for all timeouts to complete before quitting, so that I can feel safe doing this.
In general, node will wait for all timeouts to fire before quitting normally. Calling process.exit() will exit before the timeouts.
The details are part of libuv, but the documentation makes a vague comment about it:
http://nodejs.org/api/all.html#all_ref
you can call ref() to explicitly request the timer hold the program open
Putting all of the facts together, setTimeout by default is designed to hold the event loop open (so if that's the only thing pending, the program will wait). You can programmatically disable or re-enable the behavior.
Late answer, but a definite yes - Nodejs will wait around for setTimeout to finish - see this documentation. Coincidentally, there is also a way to not wait around for setTimeout, and that is by calling unref on the object returned from setTimeout or setInterval.
To summarize: if you want Nodejs to wait until the timeout has been called, there's nothing you need to do. If you want Nodejs to not wait for a particular timeout, call unref on it.
If node didn't wait for all setTimeout or setInterval calls to complete, you wouldn't be able to use them in simple scripts.
Once you tell node to listen for an event, as with the setTimeout or some async I/O call, the event loop will loop until it is told to exit.
Rather than wrap everything in a try/catch you can bind an event listener to process just as the example in the docs:
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.');
In the uncaughtException event, you can then add a setTimeout to exit after 10 seconds:
process.on('uncaughtException', function(err) {
console.log('Caught exception: ' + err);
setTimeout(function(){ process.exit(1); }, 10000);
});
If this exception is something you can recover from, you may want to look at domains: http://nodejs.org/api/domain.html
edit:
There may actually be another issue at hand: your client application doesn't do enough (or any?) logging. You can use log4js-node to write to a temp file or some application-specific location.
Easy way Solution:
Make a batch (.bat) file that starts nodejs
make a shortcut out of it
Why this is best. This way you client would run nodejs in command line. And even if nodejs program returns nothing would happen to command line.
Making bat file:
Make a text file
put START cmd.exe /k "node abc.js"
Save it
Rename It to abc.bat
make a shortcut or whatever.
Opening it will Open CommandLine and run nodejs file.
using settimeout for this is a bad idea.
The odd ones out are when you call process.exit() or there's an uncaught exception, as pointed out by Jim Schubert. Other than that, node will wait for the timeout to complete.
Node does remember timers, but only if it can keep track of them. At least that is my experience.
If you use setTimeout in an arrow / anonymous function I would recommend to keep track of your timers in an array, like:
=> {
timers.push(setTimeout(doThisLater, 2000));
}
and make sure let timers = []; isn't set in a method that will vanish, so i.e. globally.
I'm trying to read some file by opening read stream and send chunks of the file through ZMQ to another process to consume them. The stream is working like it should, however when I start the worker, it doesn't see the data that's been sent.
I tried sending data through socket every 500ms, not in a callback, and when I start the worker it collects all previous chunks of data:
sender = zmq.socket('push')
setInterval(() ->
console.log('sending work');
sender.send('some work')
, 500)
receiver = zmq.socket("pull")
receiver.on "message", (msg) ->
console.log('work is here: %s', msg.toString())
Outputs:
sending work
sending work
sending work
sending work
sending work
// here I start the worker
sending work
work is here: some work
work is here: some work
work is here: some work
work is here: some work
work is here: some work
work is here: some work
sending work
work is here: some work
sending work
work is here: some work
sending work
work is here: some work
So, when the worker starts, it begins with pulling all the previous data and then it pulls it every time sth new comes in. This does not apply when I do this:
readStream = fs.createReadStream("./data/pg2701.txt", {'bufferSize': 100 * 1024})
readStream.on "data", (data) ->
console.log('sending work');
sender.send('some work'); // I'd send 'data' if it worked..
In this scenario, the worker doesn't pull any data at all.
Are those kind of sockets supposed to create a queue or not? What am I missing here?
Yes, push socket is blocking until HWM is reached, and there's nobody to send to.
Maybe the sender hasn't bound yet, try something like this:
sender.bind('address', function(err) {
if (err) throw err;
console.log('sender bound!');
// the readStream code.
}
also a connect is missing from your code example, I bet it's there, but maybe you forgot it.
I'm trying to find the most elegant way for my node.js app to die when something happens. In my particular case, I have a config file with certain require parameters that have to be met before the server can start and be properly configured.
One way I have found to do this is:
var die = function(msg){
console.log(msg)
process.exit(1);
}
die('Test end');
Is there a better way to handle this kind of situation?
better use console.error if you are doing process.exit immediately after.
console.log is non-blocking and puts your message into write queue where it is not processed because of exit()
update: console.log also blocks in latest versions (at least since 0.8.x).
If you want to abruptly exit then this will do just fine. If you want do any clean up you should do that first after which node.js will probably stop anyway, because nothing keeps event loop running.