-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 1.6k
gRPC: fix cases where gRPC call could be finished twice #2146
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
Merged
Merged
Changes from 9 commits
Commits
Show all changes
11 commits
Select commit
Hold shift + click to select a range
372013b
Initial
var-const 12f58f9
Test
var-const 8a3ddef
Fix double failure test
var-const 2830823
Merge branch 'master' into varconst/fix-double-finish
var-const 779c0d4
style.sh
var-const 09d151f
More uniform logging
var-const 5f779b4
style.sh
var-const 785f7e2
Undo formatting extra files
var-const 0ba8b55
Review feedback, tweak one log message
var-const 0dd6b08
Restore comment
var-const 11cd356
style.sh
var-const File filter
Filter by extension
Conversations
Failed to load comments.
Loading
Jump to
Jump to file
Failed to load files.
Loading
Diff view
Diff view
There are no files selected for viewing
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
I don't entirely understand why both conditions must hold here. It seems as if
is_grpc_call_finished_
should be sufficient, no?In particular this suggests that it's possible for e.g.
completions_
to be empty butis_grpc_call_finished_
to be false and we wouldn't want to callFinishGrpcCall
, but that seems wrong.There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
The stream is in this state before it is started. Finishing a non-started stream would also fail a gRPC assertion. I don't think we should ever run into the case when
Stream
tries toFinish
aGrpcStream
before it is started. I'm mainly doing this because it's an easy check to make.If you think protecting against this case isn't worthwhile, I'll simplify the check. Otherwise, I'll add a comment.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
OK. Looking at the prior state more closely there was a comment there that explained this and it made sense. It's possible you may want to merge something of that comment with what you have below.