Is it safe to stop Qt's timer in it's "timeout" signal/slot function?
Can't seem to find any information in Qt documentation about the QTimer.
I have created a timer that is periodically sending a "keep alive" messages to the server.
I want this timer to be stopped if there is some kind of error while sending my message.
private:
QTimer* mpKeepAliveTimer;
Timer is initialized like this:
mpKeepAliveTimer = new QTimer(/* this */);
QObject::connect(mpKeepAliveTimer, SIGNAL(timeout()), this, SLOT(OnKeepAlive()));
mpKeepAliveTimer->start(KEEP_ALIVE_PERIOD);
Stopped like this:
if (mpKeepAliveTimer != NULL) // <-- Edited
{
if (mpKeepAliveTimer->isActive() == true)
mpKeepAliveTimer->stop();
delete mpKeepAliveTimer;
mpKeepAliveTimer = NULL;
}
Timeout function looks like this:
void Classname::OnKeepAlive()
{
if (isErrorFound == true)
mpKeepAliveTimer->stop(); // <---- IS THIS SAFE?
}
Thanks.
As long as you are not explicitly using Queued Connections, this is safe.
This is because the emit timeout() function will not return until all the slots it's connected to were processed.
If you were however using Queued Connections, it could in theory happen that there are still unprocessed timeout events in the Event Queue, so to make it hyper-safe you could use the following:
void Classname::OnKeepAlive()
{
if (!mpKeepAliveTimer || !mpKeepAliveTimer->isActive()) return;
if (isErrorFound)
{
mpKeepAliveTimer->stop();
}
}
Note that the condition in your stop function should be != NULL instead of == NULL. You can also write that function as follows, however:
if (mpKeepAliveTimer)
{
delete mpKeepAliveTimer;
mpKeepAliveTimer = NULL;
}
As already suggested in the comments, QTimer will stop itself in its destructor.
Related
I make a Bomberman (or DynaBlast) game clone with multiplayer. Server game and client game communicate through messages using QTcpSocket. Typical workflow for playing network game is following:
Server player execs NetworkGame dialog, among other things this dialog creates NetworkGame object
Client player execs ClientGame dialog, among other things this dialog creates ClientGame object
Client chooses IP of server and clicks "Connect"
Server accepts connections, server and clients are now able to send messages each other
Client sends "ready"-message, server start game
When game over, the game object emits GameStatusChanged(GameStatus newStatus) signal. This signal connected to MainWindow, which execs GameOverDialog. If player chooses "Play again" at GameOverDialog, MainWindow execs NetworkGame or ClientGame dialogs again and we are at the first points.
So, after first game is over, second exec of ClientGameDialog blocks QTcpSocket work in the way it cann't read data or emit QTcpSocket::readyRead signal (I don't know which one point exactly). ClientGameDialog's GUI is responsive, it can send messages to server, but it cann't read messages. At the same time NetworkGame and NetworkGameDialog work properly - they are able to send and receive messages. I checked all my classes several times and don't see any significant difference.
I think full code is to huge to post it here, so I gave UML a try. This is a chart for most important classes. Green arrow designates Qt's child-parent relations, starting at a child QObject it points to a parent.
When Socket class receives new message through QTcpSocket interface, it emits messageReceived(const Message& message) signal; other classes can connect to this signal via slots and handle messages. I don't see what Client, ServerWorker, Server classes can do with event loop, the just help to process raw data from QTcpSocket and deliver messages to other classes, particulary to Game and Dialog classes.
Here is some code (I have some code duplications, I leave them until better times). Creating game:
// Server game
void MainWindow::startNetworkGame() // User clicked "Start network game" button
{
const auto& player = mainMenuWidget_->selectedPlayer();
gameDialogs_ = createGameDialogs(this, GameType::Server, player);
auto answer = gameDialogs_.creationDialog->exec();
if (answer == QDialog::Accepted) {
auto initializationData = gameDialogs_.creationDialog->initializationData();
initializeGame(initializationData);
startGame(initializationData);
}
}
// Client game
void MainWindow::connectToServer() // User clicked "Connect to server" button
{
const auto& player = mainMenuWidget_->selectedPlayer();
gameDialogs_ = createGameDialogs(this, GameType::Client, player);
auto answer = gameDialogs_.creationDialog->exec(); // At first time it works fine
if (answer == QDialog::Accepted) {
auto initializationData = gameDialogs_.creationDialog->initializationData();
initializeGame(initializationData);
startGame(initializationData);
}
}
Next snippet is code for processing GameStatusChanged signal when game was over:
void MainWindow::gameStatusChanged(GameStatus newStatus)
{
if (newStatus == GameStatus::GameOver) {
auto* gameOverDialog = gameDialogs_.gameOverDialog;
gameOverDialog->setGameResult(gameData_.game->gameResult());
auto gameOverDialogAnswer = gameOverDialog->exec();
if (gameOverDialogAnswer == QDialog::Accepted) {
gameDialogs_.creationDialog->reset();
auto answer = gameDialogs_.creationDialog->exec(); // At this point client cann't receive messages, but server can.
if (answer == QDialog::Accepted) {
auto initializationData = gameDialogs_.creationDialog->initializationData();
initializeGame(initializationData);
startGame(initializationData);
} else {
showMainMenu();
}
} else {
showMainMenu();
}
}
}
I suspect that ClientGameDialog's event loop (is it indeed has it's own event loop) doesn't processes QTcpSocket's events. I tried to replace exec() with open methods for client dialog:
void MainWindow::gameStatusChanged(GameStatus newStatus)
{
if (newStatus == GameStatus::GameOver) {
auto* gameOverDialog = gameDialogs_.gameOverDialog;
gameOverDialog->setGameResult(gameData_.game->gameResult());
auto gameOverDialogAnswer = gameOverDialog->exec();
if (gameOverDialogAnswer == QDialog::Accepted) {
gameDialogs_.creationDialog->reset();
auto d = qobject_cast<ClientGameDialog*>(gameDialogs_.creationDialog);
if (d) {
gameDialogs_.creationDialog->open();
} else {
auto answer = gameDialogs_.creationDialog->exec();
if (answer == QDialog::Accepted) {
auto initializationData = gameDialogs_.creationDialog->initializationData();
initializeGame(initializationData);
startGame(initializationData);
} else {
showMainMenu();
}
}
} else {
showMainMenu();
}
}
}
It works, but I want to find where was the problem. Maybe someone can prompt, where to search a solution. Main questions are: where the difference between Server and Client code flows and why Client code works fine at the first time and breaks at the second.
This is because QDialog::exec is a synchronous blocking operation that will stop the event loop of the main thread and start a new event loop for this dialog. This most of the time is not a problem unless you are doing some continuous work on the main thread such as processing QTCPSocket
Instead of using QDialog::exec use QDialog::open which is asynchronous and does not start a new event loop, you can simply connect signals from the dialog to read the results once the user will accept/close the dialog.
If you require blocking dialogs then you also can simply offload QTcpSocket to another thread and do whole processing asynchronously and only emit required updates to the main GUI thread.
I am working with the boost::asio tcp, version 1.57, creating a custom server/client, roughly following this example: Async_Tcp_Client , but I'm running the io_service run() in it's own thread per server/client. Also, there can be multiple server/clients per application.
Following the example I put my await_output function to sleep when I DON'T want to send a Message, and waking it up when I do want to send one (via async_write). After a varying amount of send-operations (sometimes less then 10, sometimes several thousand) I run into strange behaviour of my await_output Deadline (a boost deadline timer).
At some point, the async_wait against the timer just "disappears" and doesn't return when I cancel the deadline to send a message.
The transmit function, that is called by the Application owning the Client/Server (only by the application though, I guess it is not very threadsafe);
The await_output function that is waiting on the mOutputQueueDeadline;
And the handle_write function:
void SocketTcp::transmit(std::string pMsg) {
if (mStopped)
{ return; }
mOutputQueue.push(pMsg); // a global queue
// Signal that the output queue contains messages. Modifying the expiry
// will wake the output actor, if it is waiting on the timer.
size_t quits = mOutputQueueDeadline.expires_at(boost::posix_time::neg_infin);
//this returns '0' when the error occurs
}
void SocketTcp::await_output(const boost::system::error_code& ec)
{
if (mStopped)
{ return; }
if (mOutputQueue.empty())
{
size_t quits = mOutputQueueDeadline.expires_at(boost::posix_time::pos_infin);
mOutputQueueDeadline.async_wait(boost::bind(&SocketTcp::await_output, this, _1));
//this async_wait starts a wait on the deadline, that sometimes never returns!
}
else
{
boost::asio::async_write(mSocket,
boost::asio::buffer(mOutputQueue.front()),
boost::bind(&SocketTcp::handle_write, this, _1));
}
}
void SocketTcp::handle_write(const boost::system::error_code& ec)
{
if (mStopped)
{ return; }
if(!ec)
{
mOutputQueue.pop(); //remove sent element from queue
boost::system::error_code errcode;
await_output(errcode); //start the waiting actor for outgoing messages
}
else
{
mConnected = false; //update the connection status
this->stop();
}
}
I tried implementing a workaround, restarting the await_output in transmit() when expire_at returns 0, but that leads to TWO actors beeing awakened the next time I send a message, and then running into a crash (String iterator not dereferencable - the design doesn't allow for parallel send OP, much less trying to send the same message...)
I tried debugging with the BOOST_ASIO_ENABLE_HANDLER_TRACKING option, and found the error here:
#asio|1468415460.456019|0|deadline_timer#000000000050AB88.cancel //transmit cancels the timer
#asio|1468415460.456019|>474|ec=system:995 //await_output is called
#asio|1468415460.456019|474*479|socket#000000000050A9D8.async_send //starts the async send
#asio|1468415460.457019|<474|
#asio|1468415460.457019|>479|ec=system:0,bytes_transferred=102 //async send returns to it's handler
#asio|1468415460.457019|479|deadline_timer#000000000050AB88.cancel
//this cancel op is the only difference to the 'normal' order,
//not sure where it originates though!!
#asio|1468415460.457019|479*480|deadline_timer#000000000050AB88.async_wait //the handler starts the new async wait
//handler 480 never gets called when the deadline is canceled the next time
#asio|1468415460.457019|<479|
I'm pretty new to c++ as well as the stackoverflow (even though it has already safed me multiple times!) so please tell me if I can improve my question somehow!
I work with QTcpSocket. I need any write/read calls to the socket to be synchronous (blocking).
I know there is waitForReadyRead() and waitForBytesWritten(), but those two methods are marked in Qt documentation as they can fail randomly under Windows. I cannot affort this.
The blocking read is the most important (as reading comes always after writting a command to the other peer, so I know that if data reaches the other peer, it will answer).
I have tried 2 approaches.
First:
QByteArray readBytes(qint64 count)
{
int sleepIterations = 0;
QByteArray resultBytes;
while (resultBytes.size() < count && sleepIterations < 100)
{
if (socket->bytesAvailable() == 0)
{
sleepIterations++;
QThread::msleep(100);
QCoreApplication::processEvents(QEventLoop::ExcludeUserInputEvents);
continue;
}
resultBytes += socket->read(qMin(count, socket->bytesAvailable()));
}
return resultBytes;
}
This should wait for bytes to be available for reading on the socket, processing the event loop in the mean time, so the socket is doing it's necessary internal stuff.
Unfortunately - for unknown to me reason - the bytesAvailable() sometimes returns correct number of bytes, but sometimes it never returns anything greater than 0.
I know in fact that there was data to be read, because it used to work with the second approach (but it has it's own problems).
Second:
I have a kind of signal "blocker", which blocks current context and processes event loop, until certain signal is emitted. This is the "blocker":
SignalWait.h:
class SignalWait : public QObject
{
Q_OBJECT
public:
SignalWait(QObject *object, const char *signal);
bool wait(int msTimeout);
private:
bool called = false;
private slots:
void handleSignal();
};
SignalWait.cpp:
SignalWait::SignalWait(QObject* object, const char* signal) :
QObject()
{
connect(object, signal, this, SLOT(handleSignal()));
}
bool SignalWait::wait(int msTimeout)
{
QTime timer(0, 0, 0, msTimeout);
timer.start();
while (!called && timer.elapsed() < msTimeout)
QCoreApplication::processEvents(QEventLoop::ExcludeUserInputEvents);
return called;
}
void SignalWait::handleSignal()
{
called = true;
}
and then I used it like this:
SignalWait signalWait(socket, SIGNAL(readyRead()));
// ...
// socket->write(...);
// ...
if (!signalWait.wait(30000))
{
// error
return;
}
bytes = socket->read(size);
This approach seems to be working better, but it also fails from time to time. I don't know why. It's like the readyRead() signal was never emitted and the SignalWait keeps waiting, until it times out.
I'm out of ideas. What is the proper way to deal with it?
I would suggest to use the asynchronous approach but if you really want to go with the synchronous way, then a better way is to use a local event loop:
QTimer timer;
timer.setSingleShot(true);
QEventLoop loop;
loop.connect(socket, SIGNAL(readyRead()), SLOT(quit()));
connect(&timer, SIGNAL(timeout()), &loop, SLOT(quit()));
while (resultBytes.size() < count)
{
timer.start(msTimeout);
loop.exec();
if(timer.isActive())
resultBytes += socket->read(qMin(count, socket->bytesAvailable()));
else
break;
}
Here it waits until count bytes are read or the the timeout reaches.
Under Qt 4.7.1, OS X 10.6.8
(have to use this -- later versions
of Qt and/or OS X introduce severe
incompatibilities for my users)
The following works. Sometimes. Then sometimes not.
When it doesn't work, it returns "Unknown Error"
hst is good in all cases, qDebug returns same correct
data for hst every time.
The idea is, use ->get to pull a CGI URL; the CGI
returns some data, which I can ignore in this case.
Then I'm done.
hst is a well formed URL,
http://yadda.com/cgi-bin/whatever.py
QString hst;
QNetworkReply *qnr;
QNetworkAccessManager *qqnap = NULL;
qqnap = new(std::nothrow) QNetworkAccessManager(tmw);
if (qqnap != NULL)
{
hst = loaduphst(); // get qstring to send
qnr = qqnap->get(QNetworkRequest(QUrl(hst))); // report in and fetch update info
if (qnr->waitForReadyRead(3000) == FALSE)
{
qDebug() << "waitForReadyRead() returned FALSE -- error or timeout:" << qnr->errorString();
}
}
else
{
qDebug() << "qqnap is NULL";
}
yadda.com is up; the target script is dead simple
and works fine from browser or cmd line every time.
This is running within the context of
MainWindow::closeEvent(QCloseEvent *ce)
before I emit ce->accept() GUI is still up,
etc.
Hints? Tips? Abuse? Thanks!
waitForReadyRead is not implemented in QNetworkReply. The default implementation does nothing:
bool QIODevice::waitForReadyRead(int msecs)
{
Q_UNUSED(msecs);
return false;
}
Use the readyRead signal to find out when there is data available to be read.
More-or-less synchronous use of async networking is very problematic in the context of the main GUI loop. Signals that don't appear (finished OR readyRead), URLs that sometimes send and sometimes don't... and of course, as the kind person above pointed out, unimplemented functions. Zebras!
What we can do, though, is fire up an event loop and a timer on our own, and this will in a more-or-less friendly way act synchronous.
Perhaps some poor soul will need to poke a website CGI as I do; here's the code. It works. At least under Qt 4.7.1 it does!
So anyway, here it is:
QNetworkReply *qnr;
QNetworkAccessManager *qqnap;
QNetworkRequest qnwr;
QEventLoop w;
QTimer arf;
if ((qqnap = new(std::nothrow) QNetworkAccessManager(this)))
{
qnwr.setUrl(myUrl()); // Build web goodness
qnwr.setRawHeader("User-Agent", myUserAgent());
arf.setSingleShot(true);
if (connect(&arf, SIGNAL(timeout()), // timer firing blows...
&w, SLOT(quit()) // ...out event loop
) == FALSE)
{ return(BAD_CONNECT_TOUT); }
if (connect(qqnap, SIGNAL(finished(QNetworkReply*)), // notify we finished...
this, SLOT(qqnapReplyQ(QNetworkReply*)) // ...cuz I need to know
) == FALSE)
{ return(BAD_CONNECT_FINISHED_NOTIFY); }
if (connect(qqnap, SIGNAL(finished(QNetworkReply*)), // finishing blows out...
&w, SLOT(quit()) // ...event loop
) == FALSE)
{ return(BAD_CONNECT_FINISHED_ELOOP); }
if ((qnr = qqnap->get(qnwr))) // Go if qnr is good
{
arf.start(6000); // timeout in ms // Watchdog timer on
w.exec(); // handle all that
if (arf.isActive()) { arf.stop(); } // kill timer if needed
}
else { return(BAD_WWWGET); } // FAIL
}
else
{
return(BAD_NWAM); // FAIL
}
return(ZEN_NETWORKING);
Is there some way to make a function pause it's execution until the socket receives a specific message? Using Signals + QEventLoop to wait doesn't work because while it can wait for signals, there isn't any way to get the data the signal emitted (or is there?).
You could connect to the following signal:
void QIODevice::readyRead() [signal]
Then, you would basically read the data and if it is the one you are looking for, you could set a boolean variable to true that is initially false. Your function would continue the execution only when the variable is true.
Make sure that the function paused is not sleeping in a sync manner too much, etc, without having a dedicated thread.
So, this would be one way of solving your task:
MySocketManager::MySocketManager(QObject *parent): QObject(parent)
{
...
connect(m_mySocket, SIGNAL(readyRead()), SLOT(handleReadyRead()));
...
}
void MySocketManager::handleReadyRead()
{
if (m_mySocket.readAll() == "myMessage")
continue = true;
}
...
void myFunction()
{
...
continue = false;
qDebug() << "Pause";
while (!continue) { ... }
qDebug() << "Continue";
...
}
This is a tad simplication of the issue, but since you have not shown much effort other than asking for solution, this should get you started.