Skip to content

Conversation

@github-actions
Copy link
Contributor

@github-actions github-actions bot commented Aug 23, 2021

Backport of #57747 to release/6.0

#57617 can be a worrying reliability issue. In case there will be other reports, it is very important to have the ability to collect traces that can help hunting down a potential bug in HttpClient or Kestrel. Currently we are not logging received PING content at all, which prevents investigation based on customer data.

This is a minimal-risk (log only) addition to #54755, which I believe we should backport to 6.0 (including RC2, and maybe RC1 if it meets the bar).

Contributes to #57617.

/cc @antonfirsov

Customer Impact

#57617 can be a worrying reliability issue (potential 6.0 regression from #54755). Currently we are not logging received PING content at all, which blocks investigation of PING-related PROTOCOL_ERROR, based on customer data (like reported in #57617). In case we get more customer reports, it is important to have the ability to collect traces that can help investigating and fixing a potential bug caused by #54755.

Testing

The PR adds an additional test to make sure all RTT PING PROTOCOL_ERROR code paths are covered. I did a local run of all SocketsHttpHandler_Http2FlowControl_Test tests with an EventListener attached.

Risk

Minimal. This is a log-only change.

@ghost ghost added the area-System.Net.Http label Aug 23, 2021
@ghost
Copy link

ghost commented Aug 23, 2021

Tagging subscribers to this area: @dotnet/ncl
See info in area-owners.md if you want to be subscribed.

Issue Details

Backport of #57747 to release/6.0

/cc @antonfirsov

Customer Impact

Testing

Risk

Author: github-actions[bot]
Assignees: -
Labels:

area-System.Net.Http

Milestone: -

@danmoseley
Copy link
Member

@steveisok a build failure in tvOS it looks like.

@danmoseley
Copy link
Member

Logging only, to help investigate customer reports. Approved for release/6.0

@karelz karelz added this to the 6.0.0 milestone Aug 23, 2021
@karelz
Copy link
Member

karelz commented Aug 23, 2021

@danmoseley any thoughts on RC1 consideration? Should we try it with Tactics?

@danmoseley
Copy link
Member

You're making an RC1 PR, as it was approved there, but no harm in merging this one meantime.

@danmoseley danmoseley merged commit c72d2c9 into release/6.0 Aug 26, 2021
@danmoseley danmoseley deleted the backport/pr-57747-to-release/6.0 branch August 26, 2021 04:35
@ghost ghost locked as resolved and limited conversation to collaborators Sep 25, 2021
Sign up for free to subscribe to this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in.

Projects

None yet

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

4 participants