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.

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

StopAtEOF does not function as expected. #37

Open
CalebRolland opened this issue Nov 6, 2021 · 2 comments · Fixed by filiptronicek/go-tail#1 · May be fixed by #71 or #76
Open

StopAtEOF does not function as expected. #37

CalebRolland opened this issue Nov 6, 2021 · 2 comments · Fixed by filiptronicek/go-tail#1 · May be fixed by #71 or #76

Comments

@CalebRolland
Copy link

Hello,

Maybe I am I misunderstand the purpose of the StopAtEOF function, but my expectation is the file would continue reading until the end of the file is reached after the function is called.

The current behavior is: the tailer will continue to go through each line, but the lines are never sent to the Lines channel because of this case switch:

tail/tail.go

Line 432 in 6abd9f9

case <-tail.Dying():

@nxadm
Copy link
Owner

nxadm commented Dec 16, 2021

I will take a look. Thank you.

Luap99 added a commit to Luap99/tail that referenced this issue Jun 26, 2024
When a StopAtEOF() is called the code should continue to send all lines
to the Lines channel. The issue here is if the caller is not ready to
receive a new line the code blocks as it is using a unbuffered channel.
However <-tail.Dying() would return in this case so the line was
skipped. This means that the caller did not get all lines until EOF.
Now we still want to skip in case any other reason for kill was given
therefore add special logic to only not read the Dying channel on the
EOF case.

The one downside is that StopAtEOF() could block forever if the caller
never reads new Lines but this seems logical to me. If the caller wants
to wait for EOF but never reads remaining Lines this would be a bug on
their end.

Fixes nxadm#37

Signed-off-by: Paul Holzinger <[email protected]>
@Luap99 Luap99 linked a pull request Jun 26, 2024 that will close this issue
@Luap99
Copy link

Luap99 commented Jun 26, 2024

I created a PR that should fix the issue #71

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
3 participants