From: "ioquatix (Samuel Williams) via ruby-core" <ruby-core@...>
Date: 2024-04-22T04:06:03+00:00
Subject: [ruby-core:117636] [Ruby master Feature#20215] Introduce `IO#readable?`

Issue #20215 has been updated by ioquatix (Samuel Williams).


Regarding naming, I had other ideas like `open?` or `connected?` but I think they have their own issues. I think my preference is `readable?` but I'd like to hear alternatives. Maybe `open?` is okay but it sounds like the opposite of `closed?` which strictly speaking it isn't.

Regarding implementation, I spent several hours debugging usage of `eof?`. Because `eof?` can mutate the underlying buffer, it's not concurrency safe either. This was the source of an extremely hard to diagnose bug where blocking `read` and `eof?` occurred in different fibers.. Maybe we should create a separate issue, to make `eof?` safer (i.e. [it doesn't call `io_fillbuf` internally](https://github.com/ruby/ruby/blob/d42a8d66024f0a86c5a162eeffff1ab91ad9fa43/io.c#L2677)).

----------------------------------------
Feature #20215: Introduce `IO#readable?`
https://bugs.ruby-lang.org/issues/20215#change-108044

* Author: ioquatix (Samuel Williams)
* Status: Open
----------------------------------------
There are some cases where, as an optimisation, it's useful to know whether more data is potentially available.

We already have `IO#eof?` but the problem with using `IO#eof?` is that it can block indefinitely for sockets.

Therefore, code which uses `IO#eof?` to determine if there is potentially more data, may hang.

```ruby
def make_request(path = "/")
  client = connect_remote_host
  # HTTP/1.0 request:
  client.write("GET #{path} HTTP/1.0\r\n\r\n")

  # Read response
  client.gets("\r\n") # => "HTTP/1.0 200 OK\r\n"

  # Assuming connection close, there are two things the server can do:
  # 1. peer.close
  # 2. peer.write(...); peer.close

  if client.eof? # <--- Can hang here!
    puts "Connection closed"
    # Avoid yielding as we know there definitely won't be any data.
  else
    puts "Connection open, data may be available..."
    # There might be data available, so yield.
    yield(client)
  end
ensure
  client&.close
end

make_request do |client|
  puts client.read # <--- Prefer to wait here.
end
```

The proposed `IO#readable?` is similar to `IO#eof?` but rather than blocking, would simply return false. The expectation is the user will subsequently call `read` which may then wait.

The proposed implementation would look something like this:

```ruby
class IO
  def readable?
    !self.closed?
  end
end

class BasicSocket
  # Is it likely that the socket is still connected?
  # May return false positive, but won't return false negative.
  def readable?
    return false unless super
    
    # If we can wait for the socket to become readable, we know that the socket may still be open.
    result = self.recv_nonblock(1, MSG_PEEK, exception: false)
    
    # No data was available - newer Ruby can return nil instead of empty string:
    return false if result.nil?
    
    # Either there was some data available, or we can wait to see if there is data avaialble.
    return !result.empty? || result == :wait_readable
    
  rescue Errno::ECONNRESET
    # This might be thrown by recv_nonblock.
    return false
  end
end
```

For `IO` itself, when there is buffered data, `readable?` would also return true immediately, similar to `eof?`. This is not shown in the above implementation as I'm not sure if there is any Ruby method which exposes "there is buffered data".



-- 
https://bugs.ruby-lang.org/
 ______________________________________________
 ruby-core mailing list -- ruby-core@ml.ruby-lang.org
 To unsubscribe send an email to ruby-core-leave@ml.ruby-lang.org
 ruby-core info -- https://ml.ruby-lang.org/mailman3/postorius/lists/ruby-core.ml.ruby-lang.org/