I am working on a small service at the moment. From my testing, the code I've written has the possibility of leaking go routines under certain circumstances pertaining to the context. Is there a good and/or idiomatic way to remedy this? I'm providing some sample code below.
func Handle(ctx context.Context, r *Req) (*Response, error) {
ctx, cancel := context.WithTimeout(ctx, time.Second * 5)
defer cancel()
resChan := make(chan Response)
errChan := make(chan error)
go process(r, resChan, errChan)
select {
case ctx.Done():
return nil, ctx.Err()
case res := <-resChan:
return &res, nil
case err := <-errChan:
return nil, err
}
}
func process(r *Req, resChan chan<- Response, errChan chan<- error) {
defer close(errChan)
defer close(resChan)
err := doSomeWork()
if err != nil {
errChan <- err
return
}
err = doSomeMoreWork()
if err != nil {
errChan <- err
return
}
res := Response{}
resChan <- res
}
Hypothetically, if the client cancelled the context or the timeout occurred before the process func had a chance to send on one of the unbuffered channels (resChan, errChan), there would be no channel readers left from Handle and sending on the channels would block indefinitely with no readers. Since process would not return in this case, the channels would also not be closed.
I came up with the process2 as a solution, but I can't help thinking I'm doing something wrong, or there's a better way to handle this.
func process2(ctx context.Context, r *Req, resChan chan<- Response, errChan chan<- error) {
defer close(errChan)
defer close(resChan)
err := doSomeWork()
select {
case <-ctx.Done():
return
default:
if err != nil {
errChan <- err
return
}
}
err = doSomeMoreWork()
select {
case <-ctx.Done():
return
default:
if err != nil {
errChan <- err
return
}
}
res := Response{}
select{
case <-ctx.Done():
return
default:
resChan <- res
}
}
This approach makes sure that each time a channel send is attempted, first the context is checked for having been completed or cancelled. If it was, then it does not attempt the send and returns. I'm pretty sure this fixes any go routine leaking happening in the first process func.
Is there a better way? Maybe I have this all wrong.