Skip to content
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

promise.timeout() doesn't cancel the original promise after the timeout #891

Closed
spion opened this issue Nov 25, 2015 · 15 comments
Closed

promise.timeout() doesn't cancel the original promise after the timeout #891

spion opened this issue Nov 25, 2015 · 15 comments

Comments

@spion
Copy link
Collaborator

@spion spion commented Nov 25, 2015

With bluebird 2.x cancellable promises were being cancelled by timeout() however in 3.x that doen't happen even if cancellation is (globally) enabled. Is this intentional?

@benjamingr
Copy link
Collaborator

@benjamingr benjamingr commented Nov 29, 2015

I hope not.

@spion
Copy link
Collaborator Author

@spion spion commented Nov 29, 2015

To reproduce:

bb2/cancel-bug.js

var Promise = require('bluebird')
var assert = require('assert')

function assertAfter(t, str) {
  return Promise.delay(t)
    .cancellable()
    .then(_ => console.error(str))
}

var p1 = assertAfter(1000, "Not cancelled");
var p2 = p1.timeout(500).catch(_ => _)

vs

bb3/cancel-bug.js

var Promise = require('bluebird')
var assert = require('assert')

Promise.config({cancellation: true})

function assertAfter(t, str) {
  return Promise.delay(t)
    .then(_ => console.error(str))
}

var p1 = assertAfter(1000, "Not cancelled");
var p2 = p1.timeout(500).catch(_ => _)

node bb2/cancel-bug has no output, while node bb3/cancel-bug prints:

Not cancelled
@petkaantonov
Copy link
Owner

@petkaantonov petkaantonov commented Nov 30, 2015

Cancellation is not rejection anymore, so how would it even work?

@bergus
Copy link
Contributor

@bergus bergus commented Nov 30, 2015

@petkaantonov: cancelling p1 should prevent the _ => console.error(…) callback from occurring and cancel the Promise.delay promise, shouldn't it?

@petkaantonov
Copy link
Owner

@petkaantonov petkaantonov commented Nov 30, 2015

what does that have to do with timeout whose purpose is to reject with a TimeoutError?

@spion
Copy link
Collaborator Author

@spion spion commented Nov 30, 2015

@petkaantonov What I meant is that .timeout() used to not only reject things, but called .cancel() on the promise. Not sure if the current .timeout() does that anymore, but I'll look into it and maybe send a PR of what I expect the behaviour to be.

@spion
Copy link
Collaborator Author

@spion spion commented Nov 30, 2015

In the PR above:

  • derived promise is rejected
  • parent (original) promise is cancelled (propagating further up the tree)

Don't know if it makes sense to do it now as it may be considered a breaking change. Alternatively it may be considered a bugfix 😀 . I think its closer to BB2 behaviour (which called .cancel() on the promise).

Is this in conflict with the new cancellation semantics? I can think of one potential problem - what if multiple promises are derived from the parent, would that result with unexpected cancellation? If so, that should be fixable by deriving two promises (parent = ret.then(), child = parent.then()), returning the child, but cancelling the "parent"

@spion
Copy link
Collaborator Author

@spion spion commented Nov 30, 2015

Example use case (assumes cancellation enabled)

function whilist(condition, body, val = undefined) {
  return Promise.resolve(condition())
    .then(isTrue => !isTrue ? val : body().then(val => whilist(condition, body, val))
}

var waitButton = whilist(_ => $('.button').length === 0, () => Promise.delay(100))
waitButton.timeout(10000, "Page failed to load"); // should end `whilist` loop
@bergus
Copy link
Contributor

@bergus bergus commented Nov 30, 2015

Is this in conflict with the new cancellation semantics?

No, I'd say it's totally in line with the new cancellation semantics. One might even consider cancelling with the TimeoutError instead of a CancellationError.

The only thing I'm not so sure about is whether parent.cancel() (in the PR) is enough. Conceptionally, you'd have to unsubscribe the handlers on parent (which were supposed to resolve the timeout promise that is now rejected) to make the cancellation work.

@petkaantonov
Copy link
Owner

@petkaantonov petkaantonov commented Nov 30, 2015

No, I'd say it's totally in line with the new cancellation semantics. One might even consider cancelling with the TimeoutError instead of a CancellationError.

You cannot cancel with anything, cancellation is not rejection anymore.

@spion
Copy link
Collaborator Author

@spion spion commented Nov 30, 2015

@petkaantonov one option is to reject the derived promise but also cancel the parent one. If cancelling the parent is not a good idea due to other promises being potentially derived from it, e.g.:

this should not propagate to cancel the logging because p2 and p3 prevent that (multiple derived promises that did not request/derive from a timeout):

var Promise = require('bluebird');
Promise.config({
  cancellation: true
});

var p1 = Promise.delay(100)
  .then(_ => console.log("p1"))

var p2 = p1.delay(200).then(_ => console.log("p2"))
var p3 = p1.delay(300).then(_ => console.log("p3"))

p1.timeout(50) 

this should propagate to cancel the console.log and reject both p2 and p3 (only one derived promise that was "cancelled" when it timed out)

var Promise = require('bluebird');
Promise.config({
  cancellation: true
});

var p1 = Promise.delay(100)
  .then(_ => console.log("p1")).timeout(50)

var p2 = p1.delay(200).then(_ => console.log("p2"))
var p3 = p1.delay(300).then(_ => console.log("p3"))

then creating a parent/child pair within timeout then returning the child (cancelling the parent, rejecting the child) should fix that (this is not yet in the PR though)

@bergus
Copy link
Contributor

@bergus bergus commented Dec 1, 2015

@petkaantonov

You cannot cancel with anything, cancellation is not rejection anymore.

Well, it is to those callbacks that still observe cancellation, isn't it? I mean things like onCancel handlers, finally, and late subscribers. And I would think it's ok if those see a TimeoutError instead of a CancellationError.

@spion

If cancelling the parent is not a good idea due to other promises being potentially derived from it

That's fine, cancel() should automatically handle that.

@spion
Copy link
Collaborator Author

@spion spion commented Dec 1, 2015

@bergus it doesn't because the original promise gets cancelled, and therefore so will the other derived promises. Which is why I suggested creating a parent and a child (or rather, a child and a grand-child), cancelling the child and rejecting the grandchild.

spion added a commit to spion/bluebird that referenced this issue Dec 1, 2015
@spion
Copy link
Collaborator Author

@spion spion commented Dec 1, 2015

Updated PR to address last point.

@bergus
Copy link
Contributor

@bergus bergus commented Dec 1, 2015

Ah, I see, that's what parent = this.then() is good for.

@spion spion closed this in c2d44d4 Dec 1, 2015
petkaantonov added a commit that referenced this issue Dec 1, 2015
Ensure timeout cancels parent (fixes #891)
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Projects
None yet
Linked pull requests

Successfully merging a pull request may close this issue.

None yet
4 participants
You can’t perform that action at this time.