What is an idiomatic way to assign a timeout to WaitGroup.Wait() ?
The reason I want to do this, is to safeguard my 'scheduler' from potentially awaiting an errant 'worker' for ever. This leads to some philosophical questions (i.e. how can the system reliably continue once it has errant workers?), but I think that's out of scope for this question.
I have an answer which I'll provide. Now that I've written it down, it doesn't seem so bad but it still feels more convoluted than it ought to. I'd like to know if there's something available which is simpler, more idiomatic, or even an alternative approach which doesn't use WaitGroups.
Ta.
I wrote a library that encapsulates the concurrency logic https://github.com/shomali11/parallelizer which you can also pass a timeout.
Here is an example without a timeout:
Output:
Here is an example with a timeout:
Output:
I did it like this: http://play.golang.org/p/eWv0fRlLEC
It works fine, but is it the best way to do it?
Mostly your solution you posted below is as good as it can get. Couple of tips to improve it:
defer
statement to signal completion, it is executed even if a function terminates abruptly.WaitGroup
and just send a value or close the channel when job is complete (the same channel you use in yourselect
statement).timeout := time.Second
. Specifying 2 seconds for example is:timeout := 2 * time.Second
. You don't need the conversion,time.Second
is already of typetime.Duration
, multiplying it with an untyped constant like2
will also yield a value of typetime.Duration
.I would also create a helper / utility function wrapping this functionality. Note that
WaitGroup
must be passed as a pointer else the copy will not get "notified" of theWaitGroup.Done()
calls. Something like:Using it:
Try it on the Go Playground.
This is not an actual answer to this question but was the (much simpler) solution to my little problem when I had this question.
My 'workers' were doing http.Get() requests so I just set the timeout on the http client.