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

Fix invalid triggers of the uncaughtException handler #1710

Merged
merged 3 commits into from Oct 30, 2018

Conversation

mridgway
Copy link
Contributor

Pre-Submission Checklist

  • Opened an issue discussing these changes before opening the PR
  • Ran the linter and tests via make prepush
  • Included comprehensive and convincing tests for changes

Issues

Closes:

Changes

The previous (prior to 7.x) functionality for uncaught exceptions only triggered the uncaughtException handler if it was truly an uncaught thrown error. Right now in Restify 7, if you turn on handleUncaughtExceptions and add a listener for the event, all errors from next(err) and internal errors like MethodNotAllowed will trigger the uncaughtException handler.

The previous (prior to 7.x) functionality for uncaught exceptions only triggered the `uncaughtException` handler if it was truly an uncaught thrown error. Right now in Restify 7, if you turn on `handleUncaughtExceptions` and add a listener for the event, all errors from `next(err)` and internal errors like `MethodNotAllowed` will trigger the `uncaughtException` handler.
lib/index.js Outdated
@@ -89,7 +89,8 @@ function createServer(options) {
e
) {
if (
this.listeners('uncaughtException').length > 1 ||
(opts.handleUncaughtExceptions &&
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Isn't this already gated (opts.handleUncaughtExceptions) on L84?

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Yeah, it is indeed. I'll remove this check.

@@ -674,6 +674,42 @@ test('GH-77 uncaughtException (default behavior)', function(t) {
});
});

// eslint-disable-next-line
test('handleUncaughtExceptions should not call handler for internal errors', function(t) {
SERVER.get('/', function(req, res, next) {
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

I'm a little bit confused about this test setup. I think we trying to verify restify/router errors (e.g., 404) don't trigger uncaught exceptions? If yes, should we just remove the get route and have the client do a get against a non-existent route?

Copy link
Contributor Author

@mridgway mridgway Oct 29, 2018

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

There seems to be a behavior difference if you have no routes (which 404s) and having only GET routes and trying HEAD (results in MethodNotAllowed error). I agree that this makes the test confusing, but I think if the behavior difference should be fixed, it should be fixed separately.

Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Gotcha - thanks for context! I expect this is related to CORS use cases - do you mind adding all of this as a comment to the test? Otherwise, it's a bit confusing to register the empty / that we actually don't expect to be run or triggered. Maybe we could do an assert.fail('should not run') or something inside the GET handler for clarity as well?

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Makes sense. I added a comment and the assertion that you mentioned.

});

// eslint-disable-next-line
test('handleUncaughtExceptions should not call handler for next(new Error())', function(t) {
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

👍

@DonutEspresso DonutEspresso merged commit ee69806 into restify:master Oct 30, 2018
@mridgway mridgway deleted the fixUncaughtExceptionTrigger branch October 30, 2018 17:12
@@ -816,7 +816,7 @@ Server.prototype._onRequest = function _onRequest(req, res) {
handlerDomain.add(req);
handlerDomain.add(res);
handlerDomain.on('error', function onError(err) {
self._onHandlerError(err, req, res);
self._onHandlerError(err, req, res, true);
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

I think this would still make errors emitted on objects bound to the domain (in this case req and res) trigger an uncaughtException event. It seems that would also be a problem?

If we consider that is indeed not what the behavior of handleUncaughtExceptions should be, we should set the fourth parameter of _onHandlerError to true only if err.domainThrown === true.

@mridgway @DonutEspresso Thoughts?

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

I believe that behavior is consistent with Restify versions <7. I'm not sure what the original intention was though.

I agree that it would make more sense to filter to only uncaught exceptions.

Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

I believe that behavior is consistent with Restify versions <7.

I just verified that looking at the 6.x branch of this repository and this is correct. Thus I'm fine with keeping that behavior, at least for now.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

None yet

3 participants