GROOVY-12459: Failed AsyncChannel producer never closes the channel so for await hangs and the exception is dropped

[daniellansun]

https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/GROOVY-12459

[github-actions]

JMH summary — classic (commit d642669)

Speedup vs trailing 90-day baseline on gh-pages. Higher = faster.
1.00 = in line with history. Per-benchmark ratio, geomean within group.
Time-per-op units inverted so direction is consistent. The calibrated
column divides out this runner's speed vs the baseline hardware, as
measured by Groovy-independent pure-Java ruler benchmarks.

Group	Speedup	Calibrated	n
bench	0.938 ×	1.015 ×	124
core	1.084 ×	1.031 ×	108
grails	1.374 ×	1.173 ×	80

⚠️ 1 benchmark at least 1.5× slower than the 90-day baseline:

• org.apache.groovy.perf.OperatorBench.spaceshipOperator — 1.56× slower (calibrated)

⚠️ Runner speed differs ≥15% from the historical baseline hardware for: core-hz, grails-ez. Raw speedups are not meaningful for those parts — use the calibrated column.

_{Runner calibration (this run vs baseline hardware): bench 0.93× (27 rulers) · core-ag 0.96× (3 rulers) · core-hz 1.24× (3 rulers) · grails-ad 0.96× (3 rulers) · grails-ez 1.38× (3 rulers)}

_{Baseline: dev/bench/jmh/<part>/classic/data.js on gh-pages, trailing 90 days. Daily dashboard · Per-suite raw data}

[github-actions]

JMH summary — indy (commit d642669)

Speedup vs trailing 90-day baseline on gh-pages. Higher = faster.
1.00 = in line with history. Per-benchmark ratio, geomean within group.
Time-per-op units inverted so direction is consistent. The calibrated
column divides out this runner's speed vs the baseline hardware, as
measured by Groovy-independent pure-Java ruler benchmarks.

Group	Speedup	Calibrated	n
bench	0.965 ×	1.079 ×	124
core	2.288 ×	2.475 ×	108
grails	1.927 ×	1.658 ×	80

No benchmark is ≥1.5× slower than its 90-day baseline.

⚠️ Runner speed differs ≥15% from the historical baseline hardware for: grails-ez. Raw speedups are not meaningful for those parts — use the calibrated column.

_{Runner calibration (this run vs baseline hardware): bench 0.91× (27 rulers) · core-ag 0.92× (3 rulers) · core-hz 0.94× (3 rulers) · grails-ad 0.94× (3 rulers) · grails-ez 1.38× (3 rulers)}

_{Baseline: dev/bench/jmh/<part>/indy/data.js on gh-pages, trailing 90 days. Daily dashboard · Per-suite raw data}

[codecov-commenter]

Codecov Report

❌ Patch coverage is 97.00000% with 3 lines in your changes missing coverage. Please review.
✅ Project coverage is 72.4314%. Comparing base (d77e6df) to head (570c912).

Files with missing lines	Patch %	Lines
.../org/apache/groovy/runtime/async/AsyncSupport.java	0.0000%	2 Missing ⚠️
...ache/groovy/runtime/async/DefaultAsyncChannel.java	93.7500%	1 Missing ⚠️

Additional details and impacted files

@@                Coverage Diff                 @@
##               master      #2987        +/-   ##
==================================================
+ Coverage     72.4166%   72.4314%   +0.0147%     
- Complexity      40606      40631        +25     
==================================================
  Files            1643       1643                
  Lines          142633     142673        +40     
  Branches        26788      26796         +8     
==================================================
+ Hits           103290     103340        +50     
+ Misses          29850      29841         -9     
+ Partials         9493       9492         -1     

Files with missing lines	Coverage Δ
src/main/java/groovy/concurrent/AsyncChannel.java	100.0000% <100.0000%> (+20.3125%)	⬆️
.../main/java/groovy/concurrent/BroadcastChannel.java	73.6000% <100.0000%> (+5.6755%)	⬆️
...java/groovy/concurrent/ChannelClosedException.java	100.0000% <ø> (ø)
src/main/java/groovy/concurrent/ChannelSelect.java	90.1408% <100.0000%> (+0.5886%)	⬆️
...ache/groovy/runtime/async/DefaultAsyncChannel.java	88.4422% <93.7500%> (+1.3454%)	⬆️
.../org/apache/groovy/runtime/async/AsyncSupport.java	77.6398% <0.0000%> (-0.9766%)	⬇️

... and 11 files with indirect coverage changes

🚀 New features to boost your workflow:

• ❄️ Test Analytics: Detect flaky tests, report on failures, and find test suite problems.
• 📦 JS Bundle Analysis: Save yourself from yourself by tracking and limiting bundle sizes in JS merges.

[sonarqubecloud]

Quality Gate failed

Failed conditions
B Reliability Rating on New Code (required ≥ A)

See analysis details on SonarQube Cloud

Catch issues before they fail your Quality Gate with our IDE extension SonarQube for IDE

[daniellansun]

Current solution borrows ideas from C#, it looks not very groovy, we can try to find better solution.

using System.Threading.Channels;

var channel = Channel.CreateBounded<int>(2);

_ = Task.Run(async () =>
{
    try
    {
        for (var i = 1; i <= 3; i++)
        {
            if (i == 3)
                throw new InvalidOperationException("sensor failed");
            await channel.Writer.WriteAsync(i * i);
        }
        channel.Writer.Complete();
    }
    catch (Exception failure)
    {
        channel.Writer.Complete(failure);
    }
});

var seen = new List<int>();
try
{
    await foreach (var value in channel.Reader.ReadAllAsync())
        seen.Add(value);
}
catch (InvalidOperationException e)
{
    Console.WriteLine(e.Message); // sensor failed
}

// seen == [1, 4]

[daniellansun]

Here is the JavaScript solution:

let n = 0;
const stream = new ReadableStream({
  pull(controller) {
    n += 1;
    if (n === 3) {
      controller.error(new Error('sensor failed')); // close with the cause
      return;
    }
    controller.enqueue(n * n);
  }
});

const seen = [];
try {
  for await (const value of stream) {
    seen.push(value);
  }
} catch (failure) {
  console.log(failure.message); // sensor failed
}

[testlens-app]

✅ All tests passed ✅

🏷️ Commit: 570c912
▶️ Tests: 122256 executed
⚪️ Checks: 33/33 completed

---

Learn more about TestLens at testlens.app/docs.

[Copilot]

Copilot was unable to review this pull request because the user who requested the review has reached their quota limit.