Skip to content
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.

Sign up for GitHub

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

More generally useful doc example for .with_graceful shutdown() #2820

Closed
wants to merge 3 commits into from
Closed

More generally useful doc example for .with_graceful shutdown() #2820

Changes from 1 commit
Commits
Show all changes
3 commits
Select commit Hold shift + click to select a range
869b763
Clearer graceful shutdown doc example.
bittrance Jul 5, 2024
5c2ed13
Switch graceful shutdown example to oneshot channel.
bittrance Jul 6, 2024
2a3a009
Update graceful shutdown example on type as well.
bittrance Jul 6, 2024
File filter

Filter by extension

Filter by extension
Conversations
Failed to load comments.
Loading
Jump to
Jump to file
Failed to load files.
Loading
Diff view
Diff view
19 changes: 11 additions & 8 deletions axum/src/serve.rs
View file
Open in desktop
Original file line number Diff line number Diff line change
Expand Up @@ -121,20 +121,23 @@ impl<M, S> Serve<M, S> {
///
/// ```
/// use axum::{Router, routing::get};
/// use std::{future::IntoFuture, sync::Arc};
/// use tokio::sync::Notify;
Copy link
Collaborator

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Nit, can't we use just a oneshot channel for the example? As long as users don't need to see how to cancel from multiple places the whole Arc is unnecessary and it might be cleaner to have the semantics of being able to shutdown only once and having a dedicated side for producing and consuming the notification.

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

The oneshot channel is fallible, so it has some noise too, but I still agree that it becomes a bit clearer that way. Updated.

Since rx yields Result<(), _> it would seem we can't just pass rx directly. Is there a way we could skip the async move {...} block and pass a future directly? It would seem we need to import futures::future::FutureExt to "eat" the Result? Would that still be preferable to using an async block? Are Axum users likely to have it in their Cargo.toml already?

///
/// # async {
/// let router = Router::new().route("/", get(|| async { "Hello, World!" }));
///
/// let listener = tokio::net::TcpListener::bind("0.0.0.0:3000").await.unwrap();
/// axum::serve(listener, router)
/// .with_graceful_shutdown(shutdown_signal())
/// .await
/// .unwrap();
/// let blocker = Arc::new(Notify::new());
/// let cancel = Arc::clone(&blocker);
/// tokio::spawn(
/// axum::serve(listener, router)
/// .with_graceful_shutdown(async move { blocker.notified().await })
Copy link
Collaborator

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Simple blocker.notified() doesn't work here?

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Lifetime issue?

/// .into_future(),
/// );
/// // ...
/// cancel.notify_one();
/// # };
///
/// async fn shutdown_signal() {
/// // ...
/// }
/// ```
pub fn with_graceful_shutdown<F>(self, signal: F) -> WithGracefulShutdown<M, S, F>
where
Expand Down