I've written client code that's supposed to send some data through a socket and read back an answer from the remote server.
I would like to unit-test that code. The function's signature is something along the lines of:
double call_remote(double[] args, int fd);
where fd is the file descriptor of the socket to the remote server.
Now the call_remote function will, after sending the data, block on reading the answer from the server. How can I stub such a remote server for unit-testing the code?
Ideally I would like something like:
int main() {
int stub = /* initialize stub */
double expected = 42.0;
assert(expected == call_remote(/* args */, stub);
return 0;
}
double stub_behavior(double[] args) {
return 42.0;
}
I would like stub_behavior to be called and send the 42.0 value down the stubbed file descriptor.
Any easy way I can do that?
If this is a POSIX system, you can use fork() and socketpair():
#define N_DOUBLES_EXPECTED 10
double stub_behaviour(double []);
int initialize_stub(void)
{
int sock[2];
double data[N_DOUBLES_EXPECTED];
socketpair(AF_UNIX, SOCK_STREAM, 0, sock);
if (fork()) {
/* Parent process */
close(sock[0]);
return sock[1];
}
/* Child process */
close(sock[1]);
/* read N_DOUBLES_EXPECTED in */
read(sock[0], data, sizeof data);
/* execute stub */
data[0] = stub_behaviour(data);
/* write one double back */
write(sock[0], data, sizeof data[0]);
close(sock[0]);
_exit(0);
}
int main()
{
int stub = initialize_stub();
double expected = 42.0;
assert(expected == call_remote(/* args */, stub);
return 0;
}
double stub_behavior(double args[])
{
return 42.0;
}
...of course, you will probably want to add some error checking, and alter the logic that reads the request.
The file descriptor created by socketpair() is a normal socket, and thus socket calls like send() and recv() will work fine on it.
You could use anything which can be accessed with a file descriptor. A file or, if you want simulate blocking behaviour, a pipe.
Note: obviosly socket specific calls (setsockopt, fcntl, ioctl, ...) wouldn't work.
I encountered the same situation and I'll share my approach. I created network dumps of exactly what the client should send, and what the server response should be. I then did a byte-by-byte comparison of the client request to ensure it matched. If the request is valid, I read from the response file and send it back to the client.
I'm happy to provide more details (when I'm at a machine with access to this code)
Here is a C++ implementation (I know, the original question was for C, but it is easy to convert back to C if desired). It probably doesn't work for very large strings, as the socket will probably block if the string can't be buffered. But it works for small unit tests.
/// Class creates a simple socket for testing out functions that write to a socket.
/// Usage:
/// 1. Call GetSocket() to get a file description socket ID
/// 2. write to that socket FD
/// 3. Call ReadAll() read back all the data that was written to that socket.
/// The sockets are all closed by ReadAll(), so this is a one-use object.
///
/// \example
/// MockSocket ms;
/// int socket = ms.GetSocket();
/// send(socket,"foo bar",7);
/// ...
/// std::string s = ms.ReadAll();
/// EXPECT_EQ("foo bar",s);
class MockSocket
{
public:
~MockSocket()
{
}
int GetSocket()
{
socketpair(AF_UNIX, SOCK_STREAM, 0, sockets_);
return sockets_[0];
}
std::string ReadAll()
{
close(sockets_[0]);
std::string s;
char buffer[256];
while (true)
{
int n = read(sockets_[1], buffer, sizeof(buffer));
if (n > 0) s.append(buffer,n);
if (n <= 0) break;
}
close(sockets_[1]);
return s;
}
private:
int sockets_[2];
};
Related
I have written simple server/client programs, in which the client sends some hardcoded data in small chunks to the server program, which is waiting for the data so that it can print it to the terminal. In the client, I'm calling send() in a loop while there is more data to send, and on the server, I'm doing the same with read(), that is, while the number of bytes returned is > 0, I continue to read.
This example works perfectly if I specifically call close() on the client's socket after I've finished sending, but if I don't, the server won't actually exit the read() loop until I close the client and break the connection. On the server side, I'm using:
while((bytesRead = read(socket, buffer, BUFFER_SIZE)) > 0)
Shouldn't bytesRead be 0 when all the data has been received? And if so, why will it not exit this loop until I close the socket? In my final application, it will be beneficial to keep the socket open between requests, but all of the sample code and information I can find calls close() immediately after sending data, which is not what I want.
What am I missing?
When the other end of the socket is connected to some other network system halfway around the world, the only way that the receiving socket knows "when all the data has been received" is precisely when the other side of the socket is closed. That's what tells the other side of the socket that "all the data has been received".
All that a socket knows about is that it's connected to some other socket endpoint. That's it. End of story. The socket has no special knowledge of the inner workings of the program that has the other side of the socket connection. Nor should it know. That happens to be the responsibility of the program that has the socket open, and not the socket itself.
If your program, on the receiving side, has knowledge -- by the virtue of knowing what data it is expected to receive -- that it has now received everything that it needs to receive, then it can close its end of the socket, and move on to the next task at hand.
You will have to incorporate in your program's logic, a way to determine, in some form or fashion, that all the data has been transmitted. The exact nature of that is going to be up to you to define. Perhaps, before sending all the data on the socket, your sending program will send in advance, on the same socket, the number of bytes that will be in the data to follow. Then, your receiving program reads the number of bytes first, followed by the data itself, and then knows that it has received everything, and can move on.
That's one simplistic approach. The exact details is up to you. Alternatively, you can also implement a timeout: set a timer and if any data is not received in some prescribed period of time, assume that there is no more.
You can set a flag on the recv call to prevent blocking.
One way to detect this easily is to wrap the recv call:
enum class read_result
{
// note: numerically in increasing order of severity
ok,
would_block,
end_of_file,
error,
};
template<std::size_t BufferLength>
read_result read(int socket_fd, char (&buffer)[BufferLength], int& bytes_read)
{
auto result = recv(socket_fd, buffer, BufferLength, MSG_DONTWAIT);
if (result > 0)
{
return read_result::ok;
}
else if (result == 0)
{
return read_result::end_of_file;
}
else {
auto err = errno;
if (err == EAGAIN or err == EWOULDBLOCK) {
return read_result::would_block;
}
else {
return read_result ::error;
}
}
}
One use case might be:
#include <unistd.h>
#include <sys/socket.h>
#include <cstdlib>
#include <cerrno>
#include <iostream>
enum class read_result
{
// note: numerically in increasing order of severity
ok,
would_block,
end_of_file,
error,
};
template<std::size_t BufferLength>
read_result read(int socket_fd, char (&buffer)[BufferLength], int& bytes_read)
{
auto result = recv(socket_fd, buffer, BufferLength, MSG_DONTWAIT);
if (result > 0)
{
return read_result::ok;
}
else if (result == 0)
{
return read_result::end_of_file;
}
else {
auto err = errno;
if (err == EAGAIN or err == EWOULDBLOCK) {
return read_result::would_block;
}
else {
return read_result ::error;
}
}
}
struct keep_reading
{
keep_reading& operator=(read_result result)
{
result_ = result;
}
const operator bool() const {
return result_ < read_result::end_of_file;
}
auto get_result() const -> read_result { return result_; }
private:
read_result result_ = read_result::ok;
};
int main()
{
int socket; // = open my socket and wait for it to be connected etc
char buffer [1024];
int bytes_read = 0;
keep_reading should_keep_reading;
while(keep_reading = read(socket, buffer, bytes_read))
{
if (should_keep_reading.get_result() != read_result::would_block) {
// read things here
}
else {
// idle processing here
}
}
std::cout << "reason for stopping: " << should_keep_reading.get_result() << std::endl;
}
I hooked some socket function of a game. Then can get the receive and sent data from sockets inside that game. The problem is: There are more then 1 socket.
How could I get the handle of the FIRST socket created? I hooked the function SOCKET, like this:
SOCKET GameMainSocket;
SOCKET _stdcall WSAAPI nSocket(int af,int type,int protocol)
{
UnHookFunction("ws2_32.dll", "socket", KSocketHook);
GameMainSocket = socket(af, type, protocol);
HookFunction("ws2_32.dll", "socket", (LPVOID*) nSocket, KSocketHook);
return GameMainSocket;
}
But then, later, when I try to compare it within hooked send and recv function, like this:
int __stdcall nSend(SOCKET s, const char *buf, int len,int flags)
{
if (s = GameMainSocket)
{
// Allow send
}
}
The code is just skipped and all the checks are true.
** My real quetion is: How could I identifie each socket created by an application?
Thanks in advance!
PROBLEM FULLY SOLVED.
My code now is:
if (s == GameMainSocket)
{
// The magic goes here, encrypt packet with XOR (server does the same)
char* buf2 = (char*) malloc (len);
memcpy(buf2, buf, len);
//buf2[0] = buf2[0];
buf2[0] = buf2[0] ^ int("x") % 255;
}
if (s = GameMainSocket)
is doing assignment which will return the assigned value, which will be true if it is not 0.
Did you mean to do the following?
if (s == GameMainSocket)
I wrote two programs, one as server and another as client. The server is written in standard C++ using WinSock2.h. It is a simple echo server which means the server responds what it receives back to the client. I used a new thread for every client's connection, and in each thread:
Socket* s = (Socket*) a;
while (1) {
std::string r = s->ReceiveLine()
if (r.empty()) {
break;
}
s->SendLine(r);
}
delete s;
return 0;
Socket is a class from here. The server runs properly and I've tested it using telnet, it works well.
Then I wrote the client using C++.NET (or C++/CLI), TcpClient is used to send and receive message from the server. The code is like:
String^ request = "test";
TcpClient ^ client = gcnew TcpClient(server, port);
array<Byte> ^ data = Encoding::ASCII->GetBytes(request);
NetworkStream ^ stream = client->GetStream();
stream->Write(data, 0, data->Length);
data = gcnew array<Byte>(256);
String ^ response = String::Empty;
int bytes = stream->Read(data, 0, data->Length);
response = Encoding::ASCII->GetString(data, 0, bytes);
client->Close();
When I run the client and tries to show the response message onto my form, the program halted at the line int bytes = stream->Read(data, 0, data->Length); and cannot fetch the response. The server is running and there's nothing to do with the network as they are all running on the same computer.
I guess the reason is that the data server responds with is less than data->Length, so the Read method is waiting for more data. Is that right? How should I solve this problem?
Edit
I think I've solved the problem... There are another two methods in the Socket class, ReceiveBytes and SendBytes, and these two methods will not delete the unused space in the bytes array. So the length of data back from the server will match that from the client, thus the Read method will not wait for more data to come.
std::string Socket::ReceiveLine() {
std::string ret;
while (1) {
char r;
switch(recv(s_, &r, 1, 0)) {
case 0: // not connected anymore;
// ... but last line sent
// might not end in \n,
// so return ret anyway.
return ret;
case -1:
return "";
// if (errno == EAGAIN) {
// return ret;
// } else {
// // not connected anymore
// return "";
// }
}
ret += r;
if (r == '\n') return ret;
}
}
i guess receiveline function of the server is waiting for an enter key '\n'.
just try with "test\n" string.
String^ request = "test\n";
// other codes....
I've been stuck on this issue for awhile where I'm unable to send a file through a socket. I've sent other information just fine using this method, but the problem seems to appear when I try to send a PNG file as a string.
These are the methods I use to to send and receive information:
// Sends a Message to the specified Socket
void Server::sendMessage(int socket, string message)
{
// Write the Message Size to the Socket
send(socket, itoa((message.length() + 1)), sizeof(size_t));
// Wait for Write Confirmation
bool response;
receive(socket, &response, 2);
// Write the Message to the Socket
send(socket, (char*) message.c_str(), message.length() + 1);
// Wait for Write Confirmation
receive(socket, &response, 2);
}
// Receives Message from the specified Socket
string Server::receiveMessage(int socket)
{
// Read the Message Size from the Socket
int size;
receive(socket, &size, sizeof(size_t));
// Send Write Confirmation
send(socket, itoa(true), 2);
// Receive the Message from the Socket
char message[size];
receive(socket, message, size);
// Send Write Confirmation
send(socket, itoa(true), 2);
// Return the Message as a String
string msg(message);
return msg;
}
The send and receive methods are just relays for write and read respectively. I'm only doing error checking in those methods, and it's the send method that's telling me that the write isn't working. In case it matters, this is my send method:
// Sends a Data Packet to the specified Socket
int Server::send(int socket, void* data, int size)
{
// Write the Data to the Socket
int count = write(socket, data, size);
// Make sure the Write Succeeded
if(count == -1)
{
print("$f1Error: $f0Unable to Write to Socket $t1%i$t0\n", socket);
exit(1);
}
return count;
}
I should note that the Server operates as a Thread, therefore the above three functions are static. The Client also contains the same four networking functions.
The command line breaking this happens in a separate static function which I use to handle Clients. Here is the relevant portion of said method:
// Handles each Client with a Thread
void* Server::server_handleClient(void* arg)
{
// Determine the Socket Descriptor
int socket = *((int*) arg);
free(arg);
// Create the Rover
Rover* rover = new Rover();
// Loop Indefinitely
while(true)
{
...
// Take a Picture and Send it
sendMessage(socket, rover -> takePicture());
...
}
// Delete the Rover
delete rover;
// Close the Socket
close(socket);
// Return a Successful Status
return (void*) new int(0);
}
Here you can see that I make use of a method from another class I've created. Here is the takePicture method from the Rover class, which is where I actually grab the picture:
// Takes a Picture and Returns the Photo as a String
inline string Rover::takePicture()
{
// Open the Picture File
ifstream picture;
string filepath = "./Server/Pictures/" + getDirection() + ".png";
picture.open(filepath.c_str());
// Make sure the File Opened
if(!picture.is_open())
return "";
// Read the File into a String Buffer
stringstream buffer;
buffer << picture.rdbuf();
return buffer.str();
}
So in short, the Server gets a picture from the Rover which it then sends to a Client. When I check the contents of the string for the photo, it's all there. All possible photos are reasonable in size (the photo used for testing is 674,962 bytes, and the buffer size sent is 674,963 which is expected).
I've used these methods for sending various messages, and all of that worked fine. I'm able to send strings (Like "Hello World!") and integers just fine.
Is there something that I'm doing wrong? Is the file that I'm trying to send simply too large? Is there some information that I'm missing? I need help...
Edit:
I've made a few changes with a little progress. I made one small change to the sendMessage command. The current problem is that the picture isn't being sent properly.
New sendMessage function:
// Sends a Message to the specified Socket
void Server::sendMessage(int socket, string message, bool data = false)
{
// Write the Message Size to the Socket
send(socket, itoa((message.length() + 1)), sizeof(size_t));
// Wait for Write Confirmation
bool response;
receive(socket, &response, 2);
// Determine the Type of Data to Send
if(data)
{
// Write the Message Data to the Socket
send(socket, (char*) message.data(), message.length() + 1);
}
else
{
// Write the Message to the Socket
send(socket, (char*) message.c_str(), message.length() + 1);
}
// Wait for Write Confirmation
receive(socket, &response, 2);
}
The Client's copy of this function has been updated to match as well.
Now that we're working on getting the PNG file saved, here's the function that deals with that as well:
// Handles each Client with a Thread
void* Client::client_handleServer(void* arg)
{
// Define Socket Variables
int socket = *((int*) arg);
free(arg);
...
// Export the Picture to the Client's Directory
message = receiveMessage(socket);
ofstream picture;
picture.open("./Client/Pictures/Picture.png", std::ifstream::binary);
picture << message;
picture.close();
...
}
Currently you are opening the file in textmode. that means any characters in the files which contain newlines "\n" are converted to new line + carriage returns "\r\n".
Open your file in binary mode, like so
picture.open(filepath.c_str(), std::ifstream::binary);
then it may work.
void Server::sendMessage(int socket, string message)
The problem is right here. Don't use string as a container for binary data. Pass the image around as a byte array. Same applies to this:
string Server::receiveMessage(int socket)
I eventually figured everything out in the long run.
Pictures are binary files, and I was using Strings which use ASCII Characters. The issue with this is that binary data does not always translate to ASCII, and Strings are terminated by null characters, whereas binary data can contain null data within it. Long story short, strings do not work.
To preserve the message handling I had in place, I ended up just converting the binary data to hexadecimal data (0-F) which could be displayed in a String.
// Wait until data can be read without blocking.
size_t read_some(implementation_type& impl,
const null_buffers&, asio::error_code& ec)
{
// Wait for descriptor to become ready.
descriptor_ops::poll_read(impl.descriptor_, ec);
return 0;
}
inside descriptor_ops
int poll_read(int d, asio::error_code& ec)
{
if (d == -1)
{
ec = asio::error::bad_descriptor;
return -1;
}
pollfd fds;
fds.fd = d;
fds.events = POLLIN;
fds.revents = 0;
errno = 0;
int result = error_wrapper(::poll(&fds, 1, -1), ec);
if (result >= 0)
ec = asio::error_code();
return result;
}
pollfd, where's the prototype defined?
::poll referring which file's poll?
ioctl , fcntl work for unix and window systems?
const null_buffers&, what's usage of passing a reference to a null_buffer?
thx
/usr/include/poll.h
The one in poll.h! It's a syscall.
No, this code is unix-specific. Windows does have WSAIoctl, but nothing that's exactly the same as fcntl (which you misspelled).
I don't know Boost very well. You seem to have extracted that code from the reactive_descriptor_service class. In general, the read_some method reads in data, the the reactive_descriptor_service looks to be an implementation of the interface that merely blocks until reading is possible, then presumably some higher caller will read and buffer the actual data. The polling calls can therefore be optimised and implemented through the generic interface, without double-buffering all the data. So, the internal class overloads the meaning the read_some slightly, and in this implementation, the buffers argument isn't used, so a dummy argument is passed instead.