Bug fix: connections managers to ensure open connections have socket timeout set based on ConnectionConfig upon lease#724
Merged
Conversation
…timeout set based on ConnectionConfig upon lease
rschmitt
approved these changes
Sep 14, 2025
rschmitt
left a comment
Contributor
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I guess either contract could be plausible, but the new behavior makes more sense to me.
arturobernalg
approved these changes
Sep 15, 2025
arturobernalg
left a comment
Member
There was a problem hiding this comment.
LGTM. Reapply socket timeout from ConnectionConfig on activation to prevent endpoint overrides leaking across leases.
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
I was looking at the pooled connection activation / passivation logic and found out that connections do not reset the socket timeout on leased open connections, which can lead to some random timeout setting from the previous and likely completely unrelated message exchange. This is a defect the way I see it.
@rschmitt Please take a look and let me know if you disagree.
@arturobernalg Could you please double-check?