https://garden.io logo
Join Discord
Powered by
<@1014822592747671602> <@936552781664387143> Did y...
# 💻｜contributing
s
@ancient-diamond-80011 @cold-jordan-68753 Did you get any further with the lockfile thing?
a
yes and no 😅
s
Maybe we should rope Jón in on this?
a
we have a manual kind-of-repro, created a new helper command with
Copy code
ts
  async action(params: CommandParams<{}, {}>): Promise<CommandResult> {
    const { garden } = params
    const store = garden.globalConfigStore
    // not awaiting here
    const configPromise = store.set("clientAuthTokens", "throw.example.com", {
      token: "",
      refreshToken: "",
      validity: new Date(),
    })

    throw new Error("oops")
  }
and then adding some 
sleep()
to the 
set()
method on the configstore, and then manually removing the lock directory with 
rmdir
while the command is sleeping, because then in the 
finally
block of 
cli.ts
we call 
delete
for the activeProcesses
but sadly the "repro" requires manually deleting the lock file - we haven't managed to reproduce the 
ENOENT
and 
ECOMPROMISED
combo with just the sleeps and throws and sets/deletes
need to figure out what can cause the lockfile to be removed before the finally block here runs https://github.com/garden-io/garden/blob/80f5b2f9ad8dbcc53be553c35220efac433b522e/cli/src/cli.ts#L48
also of note: we get the yoga layout error any time anything throws for any reason, so it is not related to the lockfile issue per se
Copy code
/Users/walther/git/garden/node_modules/yoga-layout-prebuilt/yoga-layout/build/Release/nbind.js:53
        throw ex;
        ^
s
Gotcha. Could you write a more detailed description of the error and everything we know about it, and then tag Jón here?
... just to pre-empt any questions on what we're talking about here
a
sadly this is pretty much the extent of what we know :<
- we use the 
globalConfigStore
somewhere - somewhere, somehow we get a race condition - something tries to update a lock that has already been deleted, or delete a lock that has already been deleted - very likely this is happening in the 
finally
block of 
cli.ts
s
Let's have a chat about this later, @alert-helicopter-61082
We need to get this fixed as soon as possible, so let's keep at it until we've gotten to the bottom of it
... sort of can't ship Bonsai with this bug in it
a
another possibility we explored was whether we could be hitting the 
isOverThreshold
conditions in the 
proper-lockfile
library in the 
updateLock
method, possibly from e.g. heavy synchronous code overloading the eventloop and getting time skew on the 
setTimeout
calls, leading to a difference in the expected time vs real time
but that is most likely not the case, considering in the real-world cases we've seen, we have definitely seen the 
ENOENT
as part of the error messages
well, in the worst case, we could also potentially work around this and try to just provide a nicer error message experience. @cold-jordan-68753 opened a draft PR for that https://github.com/garden-io/garden/pull/4211
reproducing this issue has been very hard - unless we figure out a reliable repro, it is probably nearly impossible to get to the bottom of this
also of note: the last commit on this library is from Jan 2021 https://github.com/moxystudio/node-proper-lockfile - it is not actively maintained and hasn't been for a couple of years. sadly we didn't really find other promising library options either
we also took a brief look at the 
onExit
handler in the lockfile library, but it's also probably not related - considering we arrive at this error without external signals such as Ctrl-C or similar
so while there are open issues like https://github.com/moxystudio/node-proper-lockfile/issues/111 and pr https://github.com/moxystudio/node-proper-lockfile/pull/112 it is most likely unrelated - i believe the 
onExit
handler will not be called in case of a thrown exception, only on signals (but i could be wrong here)
(and besides, in the 
onExit
handler any thrown errors are caught and not bubbled up, so we wouldn't see any errors from there)
a
I think one clear thing to do is to try/catch around some of the usages of the config stores, where we're sort of fine with a failure. A good example of just that is the cleaning up of the active process record. That plus manually calling the 
onExit
handler (if we can) at the end of a CLI execution.
Those would be the first things I'd try at least
c
yeah, we can add that to the code, there is also an 
onCompromised
callback that we can potentially use instead of or in addition to the try/catch.
a
Regarding the yoga thing, we may just need to update Ink: https://github.com/vadimdemedes/ink/releases
Ugh crap, it's now pure ESM... I wonder if there's anything we can do more easily to support individual packages that are like that
The docs suggest we can use 
await import(...)
for it, which should be fine for our use case I think
a
yeah the ESM stuff is becoming less and less avoidable at a fast pace :/
s
The mandatory ESM thing strikes me as a bizarre design decision. What's the value in forcing users to adapt to it? Does it really simplify anything?
Anyway, that's an irrelevant tangent—my bad
a
well, regardless of the reasons, it is getting increasingly common in the ecosystem and it will be impossible to avoid when updating a lot of our old packages. we have to make our build process support it eventually (and hopefully fairly soon)
s
Yeah
@ancient-diamond-80011 @cold-jordan-68753 Are we getting closer to a fix here?
a
some small steps towards a better direction earlier this morning, and continuing to pair right after this core daily call i'm on right now
current hypotheses - lockfile library manages to throw outside a promise (no reject) - yoga library overrides the uncaught exception handler of node - so in some cases we are unable to catch errors in our cli.ts - we just get properly thrown out of node
s
Ok, gotcha. I think it may be time to recruit more team members to pile on top of this.
Eysi was telling me about a Node package patching library that Haukur recommends
And that this might make things simpler from a compliance standpoint
He thinks it might be this one: https://www.npmjs.com/package/patch-package
... just for when we've come up with the patches we want to apply and need to decide how to apply / maintain them
a
We use that already for the pkg library/tool actually
But yeah, I think trying to update the ink library would be a sensible step, along with try/catching some of the config store calls
Would be a good couple of steps to try, and we can see if that moves us along
s
The problem seems to be that we're not able to catch an exception that's thrown when the lockfile is compromised (or at least we haven't found a way to catch it yet).
So right now, we're still figuring out what changes we can make to the lockfile library that can remedy that situation. If we figure that out, we can then decide how to wrap the whole thing in a civilised way.
@ancient-diamond-80011 @cold-jordan-68753 Let me know when you're back from lunch and ready to hop back on a call
a
good timing, literally just finished 🍽️
s
Come to think of it, we might need to do something like 
process.on("uncaughtException", (...) => ...)
. I have a feeling this is fundamentally because of the async nature of the 
setTimeout
that's happening deep in the library.
Be right there
a
disagree - we should find the cause for the uncaught exception slipping between our try-catch fingers
s
... yeah, the above is probably a bad idea.
@cold-jordan-68753 @alert-helicopter-61082 Shall we take a look at this together at 13:45?
Veeti and I are getting a bit boiled, going to take a breather
c
Yeah, sounds good
a
current knowledge: the issue is located here https://github.com/moxystudio/node-proper-lockfile/blob/9f8c303c91998e8404a911dc11c54029812bca69/lib/lockfile.js#L114-L127 - we throw within the 
setLockAsCompromised
function (and need to do so) - that throw happens within the broader context of a 
setTimeout
call on line 109, so it is happening in an "outside" async context, not caught by surrounding try-catches - however! if we monkeypatch the 
setTimeout
call to have internal try-catches as well, it still doesn't help - of note: we are also within a callback function definition on the 
options.fs.stat(
call (line 114) - it is also possible the execution of this stat call and the callback after it is handled in a separate async context in 
graceful-fs
and also ends up outside what we can catch
basically, even this kind of "wrap everything in try catches" and "inside the callback, shove the error in a variable to be thrown later" trickery will not work because our control flow will go past the 
if (asyncError)
before the callback completes
s
I'll send out a calendar invite, do this in a civilised way
Haha
c
Since the lock is compromised it means we can't guarantee the operations in the critical section, so if we want to be safe we need to fail-stop at that point.
a
yes - this was not about returning to execution without throwing, this was about trying to make sure we can catch the exception, and bubble it up into our main context instead of exploding in the "outside context" of an async function
c
yeah, thanks for clarifying 🙂
a
something in the 
fs.stat
callback handler (where it calls 
apply
and so on) seems to be happening in a separate async context, and we need to bring that back in to our main context
a
Ahead of that, it looks to me like the issue is in the promisification of the underlying lock function in the library. Basically we'd ideally need to be able to reject the lock promise in the onCompromised callback, and I see no clear way to do that except to use the underlying callback-based function.
The default onCompromised callback just throws the error, which inevitably crashes the process
Maybe something like this works:
Copy code
typescript
  private async lock() {
    const path = this.getConfigPath()
    await ensureFile(path)
    return new Promise<() => Promise<void>>((resolve, reject) => {
      lock(path, { retries: 5, stale: 5000, onCompromised: reject }).then(resolve).catch(reject)
    })
  }
s
@ancient-diamond-80011 Could you give that a try?
a
thanks, trying now 👍
c
yes, we are actually trying exactly that 🙂
a
I didn't test this at all, but you get the general idea at least
a
> inevitably crashes the process yeah - we do need to throw, we just need to do so on our own terms / in our own context (instead of in the separate async microtask / setTimeout / etc)
a
Yeah, this default onCompromised callback seems intended to kill the process, since that's inevitably an uncaught exception
I really don't think we need to pry into the underlying library though
That's at least clear then
That do the trick?
Or at least solve that particular crash?
a
yes and no :/ using that sort of a reject removes the crash, but it also makes the code continue past what the lock is meant to protect (it will write the file)
sadly, it might be inevitable that we need to do a stop-the-world crash there, and only write our own 
onCompromised
handler that catches the error, does some better logging for our users, and then throws the stop-the-world
and on the other topic - as for where the ecompromise and enoent are originating from, that's an even more difficult question than debugging this library has been 😅 we don't have a reliable reproduction for the "actual" issue - we just have a manual way to force it by manually deleting the lockfile. we would need to find out what kind of a concurrency issue is able to delete the lock from underneath us
a
Surely, we can't just need a stop-the-world crash, that's a bit crazy
a
we must, otherwise the writeFile atomic will happily continue
because we don't have real actual locks with a mutex
the writefile stuff will happily continue in its execution
a
Define real actual lock?
Anyhow, that's not an okay solution
a
the throw we are seeing is in an 
updateLock
method which is defined as a 
setTimeout
loop running in the background
if we catch it and reject, the 
writeFile
execution will happily continue in the "other thread" (not exact terminology, but)
a
We just need to have a stance on when we feel it's okay to overwrite potentially conflicting changes and lose either of the concurrent writes
Considering what's being written there generally, it's not like it's mission critical to fully guarantee successful writes
c
yeah, I think we can trust the atomic file write
just not the "concurrent" read+write operations we have in the critical section now
a
This lock is intended to avoid a change getting lost when a race happens between two writes. If that's a once in a while occurrence I don't believe it's a big deal.
I'd suggest our reaction to a "compromised" lock should be a warning and resetting of the lock.
Then we can go and see how and why exactly that might be happening, if it comes up more than we like
c
yeah, it should be fine since at least we don't corrupt the file, just overwrite with some content that might be incorrect
a
one issue here is that even resetting the lock will throw (in an un-catchable way) if it has been destroyed by something else
a
I'm sure you can work that out 🙂 I suspect just deleting the lock path does the job
This is surely solvable without an ugly crash for the user
Either that or we just use some more basic file locking library
If this is one is more trouble than it's worth
Maybe it's overengineered for our super basic use case
a
yeah - this library hasn't been updated in 2 years, but it doesn't really look like there are alternatives that would be more maintained and in active use :/ https://www.npmjs.com/search?q=lock%20file
a
It is of course one of those things that shouldn't need constant maintenance, so that's not necessarily a concern
3 Views
PreviousNext
Powered by