Long time waiting Request to Service Worker - service-worker

I have noticed that the time waiting for service workers to respond with items from the cache is not as fast as you would expect it to be. I have seen the same wait times with both sw-precache and a custom written service worker.
What are the possible causes for this wait time time and how could I reduce it?
My fetch event on the custom service worker looks like:
self.addEventListener('fetch', function(event) {
event.respondWith(
caches.match(event.request).then(function(response) {
if (response) {
return response;
}
return fetch(event.request);
})
);
});

Do you have 'Update on reload' checked within your Chrome Dev Tools under the Application -> Service Worker tab?
If so then I think this may be the problem as it'll be re-running all your Service Worker code, which can be quite a lot of code when using sw-precache, on each reload.

Event though I can't answer the possible causes for this strange wait time, I do know how to reduce it.
We are able to intercept a fetch event in service worker with event.respondWith(). Somehow, in my case, when my page needs to load a vendor's javascript via script tag with my service worker defaults to intercept every fetch event to perform cache-then-network (for assets) or network-only (for data fetching) like this:
if (shouldLoadOfflinePage) {
fetchEvent.respondWith(cacheManager.fromCache(new Request(offlinePage)));
} else if (shouldFromCache) {
fetchEvent.respondWith(cacheManager.fromCache(fetchEvent.request));
} else {
fetchEvent.respondWith(fetch(fetchEvent.request));
}
The last block intercepts a network-only request which is pretty unnecessary to do. This unnecessary block somehow causes a blocking load (but I don't know what blocks it):
long request to serviceworker wait time: ~400ms
So I decided not to intercept unnecessary fetch-interception (of course by removing the last block):
if (shouldLoadOfflinePage) {
fetchEvent.respondWith(cacheManager.fromCache(new Request(offlinePage)));
} else if (shouldFromCache) {
fetchEvent.respondWith(cacheManager.fromCache(fetchEvent.request));
}
Then my page needs only 16ms to load the aforementioned file.
Hope this will help

clear out the indexedDB will help to reduce the time it takes to "Request to Service Worker". You could delete it by js:
indexedDB.deleteDatabase(location.host);
or do it manually:
/Users/[USERNAME]/Library/Application
Support/Google/Chrome/Default/IndexedDB/

Related

Service-Worker stays in waiting state in Chrome

I'm working on a SPA with Vue. I'd like to update to a new service-worker when the user navigates to a specific page. A save moment to refresh, because the view of the user already changes (a pattern discussed in this video: https://youtu.be/cElAoxhQz6w)
I have an issue that sometimes (infrequently) the service-worker won't activate while calling skipWaiting. The call is made correctly, and even in Chrome I get a response that the current service-worker stops (see animated GIF), however it the same service-worker starts running again, instead of the waiting one.
After a while (1-2 minutes) the service-worker is suddenly activated. Not a situation you want, because it happens just out of the blue when the user might be in the middle of an activity.
Also when I am in this situation I can't activate the service-worker by calling skipWaiting (by doing multiple navigations) again. It's received by the service-worker but nothing happens. It stays in "waiting to activate". When I press skipWaiting in Chrome itself, it works.
I have no clue what goes wrong. Is this an issue with Chrome, workbox or something else?
Most close comes this topic: self.skipWaiting() not working in Service Worker
I use Vue.js, but I don't depend on the pwa plugin for the service-worker. I use the workbox webpack plugin.
I've edited the example code below, the minimal code probably didn't show the problem well
In main.js:
let sw = await navigator.serviceWorker.register("/service-worker.js", {
updateViaCache: "none",
});
let firstSw = false;
navigator.serviceWorker.addEventListener("controllerchange", () => {
// no need to refresh when the first sw controls the page, we solve this with clientsClaim
// this makes sure when multiple-tabs are open all refresh
if (!firstSw) {
window.location.reload();
}
});
sw.onupdatefound = () => {
const installingWorker = sw.installing;
installingWorker.onstatechange = async () => {
console.log("installing worker state-change: " + installingWorker.state);
if (installingWorker.state === "installed") {
if (navigator.serviceWorker.controller) {
firstSw = false;
// set the waiting service-worker in the store
// so we can update it and refresh the page on navigation
await store.dispatch("setWaitingSW", sw.waiting);
} else {
console.log("First sw available");
firstSw = true;
}
}
};
};
In router.js:
// after navigation to specific routes we check for a waiting service-worker.
router.afterEach(async (to) => {
if (to.name == "specificpage") {
let waitingSw = store.getters["getWaitingSW"];
if (waitingSw) {
waitingSw.postMessage("SKIP_WAITING");
// clean the store, because we might have changed our data model
await store.dispatch("cleanLocalForage");
}
}
});
In service-worker.js:
self.addEventListener("message", event => {
if (event.data === "SKIP_WAITING") {
console.log("sw received skip waiting");
self.skipWaiting();
}
});
skipWaiting() isn't instant. If there are active fetches going through the current service worker, it won't break those. If you're seeing skipWaiting() taking a long time, I'd guess you have some long-running HTTP connections holding the old service worker in place.
I'm not sure that
let sw = await navigator.serviceWorker.register("/service-worker.js", {updateViaCache: "none"});
if (sw.waiting) {
sw.waiting.postMessage("SKIP_WAITING");
}
is the code that you want in this case. Your if (sw.waiting) check is only evaluated once, and the newly registered service worker might still be in the installing state when it's evaluated. If that's the case, then sw.waiting will be false-y at the time of initial evaluation, though it may be true-thy after a small period of time.
Instead, I'd recommend following a pattern like what's demonstrated in this recipe, where you explicitly listen for a service worker to enter waiting on the registration. That example uses the workbox-window library to paper over some of the details.
If you don't want to use workbox-window, you should follow this guidance check to see if sw.installing is set after registration; if it is, listen to the statechange event on sw.installing to detect when it's 'installed'. Once that happens, sw.waiting should be set to the newly installed service worker, and at that point, you could postMessage() to it.
Ok i had a similar issue and it took me two days to find the cause.
There is a scenario where you can cause a race condition between the new service worker and the old if you request a precached asset at the exact same time you call skip waiting.
For me i was prompting the user to update to a new version and upon their confirmation i was showing a loading spinner which was a Vue SFC dynamic import which kicked off a network request to the old service worker to fetch the precached js file which basically caused both to hang and get very confused.
You can check if your having a similar issue by looking at the service worker specific network requests (Network requests button in the image below) that are happening and make sure they aren't happening the instant you're trying to skip waiting on your newer service worker.

Service worker to save form data when browser is offline

I am new to Service Workers, and have had a look through the various bits of documentation (Google, Mozilla, serviceworke.rs, Github, StackOverflow questions). The most helpful is the ServiceWorkers cookbook.
Most of the documentation seems to point to caching entire pages so that the app works completely offline, or redirecting the user to an offline page until the browser can redirect to the internet.
What I want to do, however, is store my form data locally so my web app can upload it to the server when the user's connection is restored. Which "recipe" should I use? I think it is Request Deferrer. Do I need anything else to ensure that Request Deferrer will work (apart from the service worker detector script in my web page)? Any hints and tips much appreciated.
Console errors
The Request Deferrer recipe and code doesn't seem to work on its own as it doesn't include file caching. I have added some caching for the service worker library files, but I am still getting this error when I submit the form while offline:
Console: {"lineNumber":0,"message":
"The FetchEvent for [the form URL] resulted in a network error response:
the promise was rejected.","message_level":2,"sourceIdentifier":1,"sourceURL":""}
My Service Worker
/* eslint-env es6 */
/* eslint no-unused-vars: 0 */
/* global importScripts, ServiceWorkerWare, localforage */
importScripts('/js/lib/ServiceWorkerWare.js');
importScripts('/js/lib/localforage.js');
//Determine the root for the routes. I.e, if the Service Worker URL is http://example.com/path/to/sw.js, then the root is http://example.com/path/to/
var root = (function() {
var tokens = (self.location + '').split('/');
tokens[tokens.length - 1] = '';
return tokens.join('/');
})();
//By using Mozilla’s ServiceWorkerWare we can quickly setup some routes for a virtual server. It is convenient you review the virtual server recipe before seeing this.
var worker = new ServiceWorkerWare();
//So here is the idea. We will check if we are online or not. In case we are not online, enqueue the request and provide a fake response.
//Else, flush the queue and let the new request to reach the network.
//This function factory does exactly that.
function tryOrFallback(fakeResponse) {
//Return a handler that…
return function(req, res) {
//If offline, enqueue and answer with the fake response.
if (!navigator.onLine) {
console.log('No network availability, enqueuing');
return enqueue(req).then(function() {
//As the fake response will be reused but Response objects are one use only, we need to clone it each time we use it.
return fakeResponse.clone();
});
}
//If online, flush the queue and answer from network.
console.log('Network available! Flushing queue.');
return flushQueue().then(function() {
return fetch(req);
});
};
}
//A fake response with a joke for when there is no connection. A real implementation could have cached the last collection of updates and keep a local model. For simplicity, not implemented here.
worker.get(root + 'api/updates?*', tryOrFallback(new Response(
JSON.stringify([{
text: 'You are offline.',
author: 'Oxford Brookes University',
id: 1,
isSticky: true
}]),
{ headers: { 'Content-Type': 'application/json' } }
)));
//For deletion, let’s simulate that all went OK. Notice we are omitting the body of the response. Trying to add a body with a 204, deleted, as status throws an error.
worker.delete(root + 'api/updates/:id?*', tryOrFallback(new Response({
status: 204
})));
//Creation is another story. We can not reach the server so we can not get the id for the new updates.
//No problem, just say we accept the creation and we will process it later, as soon as we recover connectivity.
worker.post(root + 'api/updates?*', tryOrFallback(new Response(null, {
status: 202
})));
//Start the service worker.
worker.init();
//By using Mozilla’s localforage db wrapper, we can count on a fast setup for a versatile key-value database. We use it to store queue of deferred requests.
//Enqueue consists of adding a request to the list. Due to the limitations of IndexedDB, Request and Response objects can not be saved so we need an alternative representations.
//This is why we call to serialize().`
function enqueue(request) {
return serialize(request).then(function(serialized) {
localforage.getItem('queue').then(function(queue) {
/* eslint no-param-reassign: 0 */
queue = queue || [];
queue.push(serialized);
return localforage.setItem('queue', queue).then(function() {
console.log(serialized.method, serialized.url, 'enqueued!');
});
});
});
}
//Flush is a little more complicated. It consists of getting the elements of the queue in order and sending each one, keeping track of not yet sent request.
//Before sending a request we need to recreate it from the alternative representation stored in IndexedDB.
function flushQueue() {
//Get the queue
return localforage.getItem('queue').then(function(queue) {
/* eslint no-param-reassign: 0 */
queue = queue || [];
//If empty, nothing to do!
if (!queue.length) {
return Promise.resolve();
}
//Else, send the requests in order…
console.log('Sending ', queue.length, ' requests...');
return sendInOrder(queue).then(function() {
//Requires error handling. Actually, this is assuming all the requests in queue are a success when reaching the Network.
// So it should empty the queue step by step, only popping from the queue if the request completes with success.
return localforage.setItem('queue', []);
});
});
}
//Send the requests inside the queue in order. Waiting for the current before sending the next one.
function sendInOrder(requests) {
//The reduce() chains one promise per serialized request, not allowing to progress to the next one until completing the current.
var sending = requests.reduce(function(prevPromise, serialized) {
console.log('Sending', serialized.method, serialized.url);
return prevPromise.then(function() {
return deserialize(serialized).then(function(request) {
return fetch(request);
});
});
}, Promise.resolve());
return sending;
}
//Serialize is a little bit convolved due to headers is not a simple object.
function serialize(request) {
var headers = {};
//for(... of ...) is ES6 notation but current browsers supporting SW, support this notation as well and this is the only way of retrieving all the headers.
for (var entry of request.headers.entries()) {
headers[entry[0]] = entry[1];
}
var serialized = {
url: request.url,
headers: headers,
method: request.method,
mode: request.mode,
credentials: request.credentials,
cache: request.cache,
redirect: request.redirect,
referrer: request.referrer
};
//Only if method is not GET or HEAD is the request allowed to have body.
if (request.method !== 'GET' && request.method !== 'HEAD') {
return request.clone().text().then(function(body) {
serialized.body = body;
return Promise.resolve(serialized);
});
}
return Promise.resolve(serialized);
}
//Compared, deserialize is pretty simple.
function deserialize(data) {
return Promise.resolve(new Request(data.url, data));
}
var CACHE = 'cache-only';
// On install, cache some resources.
self.addEventListener('install', function(evt) {
console.log('The service worker is being installed.');
// Ask the service worker to keep installing until the returning promise
// resolves.
evt.waitUntil(precache());
});
// On fetch, use cache only strategy.
self.addEventListener('fetch', function(evt) {
console.log('The service worker is serving the asset.');
evt.respondWith(fromCache(evt.request));
});
// Open a cache and use `addAll()` with an array of assets to add all of them
// to the cache. Return a promise resolving when all the assets are added.
function precache() {
return caches.open(CACHE).then(function (cache) {
return cache.addAll([
'/js/lib/ServiceWorkerWare.js',
'/js/lib/localforage.js',
'/js/settings.js'
]);
});
}
// Open the cache where the assets were stored and search for the requested
// resource. Notice that in case of no matching, the promise still resolves
// but it does with `undefined` as value.
function fromCache(request) {
return caches.open(CACHE).then(function (cache) {
return cache.match(request).then(function (matching) {
return matching || Promise.reject('no-match');
});
});
}
Here is the error message I am getting in Chrome when I go offline:
(A similar error occurred in Firefox - it falls over at line 409 of ServiceWorkerWare.js)
ServiceWorkerWare.prototype.executeMiddleware = function (middleware,
request) {
var response = this.runMiddleware(middleware, 0, request, null);
response.catch(function (error) { console.error(error); });
return response;
};
this is a little more advanced that a beginner level. But you will need to detect when you are offline or in a Li-Fi state. Instead of POSTing data to an API or end point you need to queue that data to be synched when you are back on line.
This is what the Background Sync API should help with. However, it is not supported across the board just yet. Plus Safari.........
So maybe a good strategy is to persist your data in IndexedDB and when you can connect (background sync fires an event for this) you would then POST the data. It gets a little more complex for browsers that don't support service workers (Safari) or don't yet have Background Sync (that will level out very soon).
As always design your code to be a progressive enhancement, which can be tricky, but worth it in the end.
Service Workers tend to cache the static HTML, CSS, JavaScript, and image files.
I need to use PouchDB and sync it with CouchDB
Why CouchDB?
CouchDB is a NoSQL database consisting of a number of Documents
created with JSON.
It has versioning (each document has a _rev
property with the last modified date)
It can be synchronised with
PouchDB, a local JavaScript application that stores data in local
storage via the browser using IndexedDB. This allows us to create
offline applications.
The two databases are both “master” copies of
the data.
PouchDB is a local JavaScript implementation of CouchDB.
I still need a better answer than my partial notes towards a solution!
Yes, this type of service worker is the correct one to use for saving form data offline.
I have now edited it and understood it better. It caches the form data, and loads it on the page for the user to see what they have entered.
It is worth noting that the paths to the library files will need editing to reflect your local directory structure, e.g. in my setup:
importScripts('/js/lib/ServiceWorkerWare.js');
importScripts('/js/lib/localforage.js');
The script is still failing when offline, however, as it isn't caching the library files. (Update to follow when I figure out caching)
Just discovered an extra debugging tool for service workers (apart from the console): chrome://serviceworker-internals/. In this, you can start or stop service workers, view console messages, and the resources used by the service worker.

How to know that Event.respondWith has finished(callback for Event.respondWith()

Currently i have a logic in ServiceWorker where i need to check within Service Worker if a particular event.respondWith() has finished or not , only after that i need to delete the cache.Is there any way to know that.I checked that event.respondWith() does not have a then() or callback .
If your cache cleanup is independent of the Response that's being used to fulfill the Promise passed to event.respondWith(), then you can (probably) just kick it off asynchronously inside the fetch event handler without worrying about whether event.respondWith() has completed. This would be the case if you, for instance, want to clean up a cache whenever it's grown past N entries in size.
If your cache cleanup is specific to the Response that's being used to fulfill the Promise, then you're going to want to insert the logic into the Promise chain, making sure that you end the chain by fulfilling with the valid Response. I'm assuming that you have control over the fetch event handler and can do that. Here's an general (untested) approach:
self.addEventListner('fetch', event => {
const p = promiseThatFulfillsWithResponse(); // Your logic goes here.
event.respondWith(p.then(response => {
return caches.open('my-cache-name')
.then(cache => cache.delete(event.request)) // Or whatever you want to delete.
.then(() => response); // Return response at the end of the chain!
});
});
You don't want to do too much inside your Promise chain, since everything you do will delay the Response being passed to the controlled page.

Service Worker and transparent cache updates

I am trying to install a ServiceWorker for a simple, yet old, Django web app. I started working with the example read-through caching example from the Chrome team
This works well but isn't ideal because I want to update the cache, if needed. There are two recommended ways to do this based on reading all the other service-worker answers here.
Use some server-side logic to know when the stuff you show has updated and then update your service worker to change what is precached. This is what sw-precache does, for example.
Just update the cache version in the service worker JS file (see comments in the JS file on the caching example above) whenever resources you depend on update.
Neither are great solutions for me. First, this is a dumb, legacy app. I don't have the application stack that sw-precache relies on. Second, someone else updates the data that will be shown (it is basically a list of things with a details page).
I wanted to try out the "use cache, but update the cache from network" that Jake Archibald suggested in his offline cookbook but I can't quite get it to work.
My original thinking was I should just be able to return the cached version in my service worker, but queue a function that would update the cache if the network is available. For example, something like this in the fetch event listener
// If there is an entry in cache, return it after queueing an update
console.log(' Found response in cache:', response);
setTimeout(function(request, cache){
fetch(request).then(function(response){
if (response.status < 400 && response.type == 'basic') {
console.log("putting a new response into cache");
cache.put(request, response);
}
})
},10, request.clone(), cache);
return response;
But this doesn't work. The page gets stuck loading.
whats wrong with the code above? Whats the right way to get to my target design?
It sounds like https://jakearchibald.com/2014/offline-cookbook/#stale-while-revalidate is very close to what you're looking for
self.addEventListener('fetch', function(event) {
event.respondWith(
caches.open('mysite-dynamic').then(function(cache) {
return cache.match(event.request).then(function(response) {
var fetchPromise = fetch(event.request).then(function(networkResponse) {
// if we got a response from the cache, update the cache
if (response) {
cache.put(event.request, networkResponse.clone());
}
return networkResponse;
});
// respond from the cache, or the network
return response || fetchPromise;
});
})
);
});
On page reload you can refresh your service worker with new version meanwhile old one will take care of request.
Once everything is done and no page is using old service worker, It will using newer version of service worker.
this.addEventListener('fetch', function(event){
event.responseWith(
caches.match(event.request).then(function(response){
return response || fetch(event.request).then(function(resp){
return caches.open('v1').then(function(cache){
cache.put(event.request, resp.clone());
return resp;
})
}).catch(function() {
return caches.match('/sw/images/myLittleVader.jpg');
});
})
)
});
I recommend you to walk through below link for detailed functionality
https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Web/API/Service_Worker_API/Using_Service_Workers

Any idea why requests to vertx embedded in grails are synchronously queued up

Environment: Mac osx lion
Grails version: 2.1.0
Java: 1.7.0_08-ea
If I start up vertx in embedded mode within Bootstrap.groovy and try to hit the same websocket endpoint through multiple browsers, the requests get queued up.
So depending on the timing of the requests, after one request is done with its execution the next request gets into the handler.
I've tried this with both websocket and SockJs and noticed the same behavior on both.
BootStrap.groovy (SockJs):
def vertx = Vertx.newVertx()
def server = vertx.createHttpServer()
def sockJSServer = vertx.createSockJSServer(server)
def config = ["prefix": "/eventbus"]
sockJSServer.installApp(config) { sock ->
sleep(10000)
}
server.listen(8088)
javascript:
<script>
function initializeSocket(message) {
console.log('initializing web socket');
var socket = new SockJS("http://localhost:8088/eventbus");
socket.onmessage = function(event) {
console.log("received message");
}
socket.onopen = function() {
console.log("start socket");
socket.send(message);
}
socket.onclose = function() {
console.log("closing socket");
}
}
OR
BootStrap.groovy (Websockets):
def vertx = Vertx.newVertx()
def server = vertx.createHttpServer()
server.setAcceptBacklog(10000);
server.websocketHandler { ws ->
println('**received websocket request')
sleep(10000)
}.listen(8088)
javascript
socket = new WebSocket("ws://localhost:8088/ffff");
socket.onmessage = function(event) {
console.log("message received");
}
socket.onopen = function() {
console.log("socket opened")
socket.send(message);
}
socket.onclose = function() {
console.log("closing socket")
}
From the helpful folks at vertx:
def server = vertx.createHttpServer() is actually a verticle and a verticle is a single threaded process
As bluesman says, each verticle goes in its own thread. You can span your verticles across cores in your hardware, even clustering them with more machines. But this add capacity to accept simultaneous requests.
When programming realtime apps, we should try to build the response as soon as posible to avoid blocking. If you think your operation can be time intensive, consider this model:
Make a request
Pass the task to a worker verticle and assign this task an UUID (for example), and put it into response. The caller now knows that the work is in progress and receive the response so fast
When the worker ends the task, put a notification in event bus using the UUID assigned.
The caller check the event bus for the task result.
This is tipically done in a web application vía websockets, sockjs, etc.
This way you can accept thousands of request without blocking. And clients will receive the result without blocking the UI.
Vert.x use the JVM to create a so called "multi-reactor pattern", that is a reactor pattern modified to perform better.
As far as I understood is not true that each verticle has its own thread: the fact is that each verticle is always served by the same event loop, but more verticles can be binded with the same event loop and there can be multiple event loops. An event loop is basically a thread, so few threads should serve many verticles.
I didn't use vert.x in embedded mode (and I don't know if the main concept change) but you should perform much better instantiating many verticles for the job
Regards,
Carlo
As mentioned before Vertx concept is based on reactor pattern which means the single instance has at least one single-threaded event loop and processes events sequentially. Now the request processing may consist of several events, the point here is to serve the request and each event with non-blocking routines.
E.g. when you wait for Web Socket message the request should be suspended and in the event of message it is woken back. Whatever you do with the message should be also non-blocking thus asynchronous, like any file IO, networking IO, DB access. Vertx provides basic elements which you should use to build such async flow: Buffers, Pumps, Timers, EventBus.
To wrap it up - just never block. The use of sleep(10000) kills the concept. If you really need to halt the execution use VertX's Timers instead.

Resources