Skip to content

CLDSRV-968: Expire idle keep-alive sockets in the functional test client - #6247

Open
tcarmet wants to merge 1 commit into
development/9.3from
bugfix/CLDSRV-968-test-client-idle-socket-timeout
Open

CLDSRV-968: Expire idle keep-alive sockets in the functional test client#6247
tcarmet wants to merge 1 commit into
development/9.3from
bugfix/CLDSRV-968-test-client-idle-socket-timeout

Conversation

@tcarmet

@tcarmet tcarmet commented Aug 4, 2026

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

The functional test client keeps pooled keep-alive connections indefinitely, so after an idle gap it can send a request over a connection the server has already closed and fail with a spurious connection reset. Because the client also runs with retries disabled, one reset is enough to fail a hook and take a whole group of tests down with it, which surfaces as intermittent CI red on slower full-deployment environments where such idle gaps actually occur.

This makes the client expire its own idle connections before the server does, so the reuse race cannot arise.

The SDK agents in the aws-node-sdk test client enable keepAlive without an idle
timeout, so pooled sockets are never expired client-side. Node's HTTP server
closes idle keep-alive connections after 5s and advertises `Keep-Alive:
timeout=5`, but the agent only honours that hint when it already has a non-zero
timeout of its own. Without one, a burst of requests issued after an idle period
can be written to connections the server has already closed, failing with
ECONNRESET ("socket hang up").

Set a 4s agent idle timeout so the client retires sockets before the server
does. This only destroys sockets sitting in the free pool; in-flight requests
stay governed by requestTimeout.
@bert-e

bert-e commented Aug 4, 2026

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

Hello tcarmet,

My role is to assist you with the merge of this
pull request. Please type @bert-e help to get information
on this process, or consult the user documentation.

Available options
name description privileged authored
/after_pull_request Wait for the given pull request id to be merged before continuing with the current one.
/bypass_author_approval Bypass the pull request author's approval
/bypass_build_status Bypass the build and test status
/bypass_commit_size Bypass the check on the size of the changeset TBA
/bypass_incompatible_branch Bypass the check on the source branch prefix
/bypass_jira_check Bypass the Jira issue check
/bypass_peer_approval Bypass the pull request peers' approval
/bypass_leader_approval Bypass the pull request leaders' approval
/approve Instruct Bert-E that the author has approved the pull request. ✍️
/create_pull_requests Allow the creation of integration pull requests.
/create_integration_branches Allow the creation of integration branches.
/no_octopus Prevent Wall-E from doing any octopus merge and use multiple consecutive merge instead
/unanimity Change review acceptance criteria from one reviewer at least to all reviewers
/wait Instruct Bert-E not to run until further notice.
Available commands
name description privileged
/help Print Bert-E's manual in the pull request.
/status Print Bert-E's current status in the pull request TBA
/clear Remove all comments from Bert-E from the history TBA
/retry Re-start a fresh build TBA
/build Re-start a fresh build TBA
/force_reset Delete integration branches & pull requests, and restart merge process from the beginning.
/reset Try to remove integration branches unless there are commits on them which do not appear on the source branch.

Status report is not available.

@bert-e

bert-e commented Aug 4, 2026

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

Incorrect fix version

The Fix Version/s in issue CLDSRV-968 contains:

  • None

Considering where you are trying to merge, I ignored possible hotfix versions and I expected to find:

  • 9.3.16

  • 9.4.0

Please check the Fix Version/s of CLDSRV-968, or the target
branch of this pull request.

@tcarmet
tcarmet marked this pull request as ready for review August 4, 2026 23:08
@tcarmet
tcarmet requested a review from a team August 4, 2026 23:08
@bert-e

bert-e commented Aug 5, 2026

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

Request integration branches

Waiting for integration branch creation to be requested by the user.

To request integration branches, please comment on this pull request with the following command:

/create_integration_branches

Alternatively, the /approve and /create_pull_requests commands will automatically
create the integration branches.

@tcarmet
tcarmet requested a review from a team August 5, 2026 15:45
@tcarmet

tcarmet commented Aug 5, 2026

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor Author

/create_integration_branches

@bert-e

bert-e commented Aug 5, 2026

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

Integration data created

I have created the integration data for the additional destination branches.

The following branches will NOT be impacted:

  • development/7.10
  • development/7.4
  • development/7.70
  • development/8.8
  • development/9.0
  • development/9.1
  • development/9.2

You can set option create_pull_requests if you need me to create
integration pull requests in addition to integration branches, with:

@bert-e create_pull_requests

The following options are set: create_integration_branches

@bert-e

bert-e commented Aug 5, 2026

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

Waiting for approval

The following approvals are needed before I can proceed with the merge:

  • the author

  • 2 peers

The following options are set: create_integration_branches

maxSockets: 200,
keepAlive: true,
keepAliveMsecs: 1000,
timeout: AGENT_IDLE_TIMEOUT,

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

FWIW, nodejs 22.20 has a new option agentKeepAliveTimeoutBuffer of 1 second by default, which would naturally have the same effect here but in a more perennial way (https://nodejs.org/docs/latest/api/http.html#new-agentoptions). Currently the node version is pinned to 22.14 so it's not present, I think the proposed fix is good in the meantime but we could consider reverting it in the future (maybe worth a TODO)

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Oh nice! Definitely worth a todo yeah. I'll create a ticket for nodejs upgrade add a todo in the comments to remove this config when tackling it.

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.

5 participants