Feature proposal: Signal client disconnect using Request.signal
#3033
Labels
feature request
Request for Workers team to add a feature
Request.signal
#3033
As I understand it, when a client disconnects, the context/"thread" for a request is aborted as is. And if
ctx.waitUntil()
was called, then those promises are allowed some time to resolve.When you are running async callbacks using
ctx.waitUntil(promise)
, there is no easy way to know that the client has disconnected.Conceptually, if you responded with a
ReadableStream
, then controller.enqueue(chunk) should throw orwriter.write(chunk)
of the writable side should reject on the next write. This would require keeping the context alive withctx.waitUntil(writable.closed)
or something like that, otherwise the context would just die immediately anyway. However I've found that these don't seem to reliably throw/reject when the client disconnects. Perhaps that is a separate issue.Much of what I'm describing above is from experience/testing or examining
workerd
rather than documentation, so feel free to correct me.Proposal
The
Request.signal
API is an existing standard API which reflects theAbortSignal
passed when constructing the request. However thesignal
property of the incoming request currently does nothing.I propose that the Workers runtime utilise this existing API by "aborting" the
signal
of the incoming request when a client disconnects. Any scripts that are interested in reacting when the client has disconnected can utilise this signal.If an abort listener has been registered using
request.signal.addEventListener('abort', ...)
then the runtime will call those handler(s) when the client disconnects, before aborting the context. If the handler(s) synchronously callctx.waitUntil(promise)
then that will keep the context alive for a further period of time.Credit to uri2 here for this inspiration of this idea, as other proposals I had entertained were new non-standard APIs such as
ctx.addEventListener('end', ...)
etc.I'm happy to contribute if this proposal makes it through.
Use cases
The use-cases I require this for are scenarios when the Worker is generating a long-running response stream on the fly, for example Server-sent events.
When the client disconnects from the stream, it is useful to react to perform logging, or do cleanup such as signalling user presence in a database.
Currently the request will either die immediately, or if
ctx.waitUntil(writable.closed)
was called then it will continue running unknowingly until it gets terminated anyway 30s or so later.The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: