-
-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 130
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
Docs: Socket-based interceptor #399
Comments
Socket is also sensitive to import order. Since most of developers don't import it directly, the Interceptor must be imported before any of the third-parties. This is problematic to achieve sometimes. |
Released: v0.32.0 🎉This has been released in v0.32.0! Make sure to always update to the latest version ( Predictable release automation by @ossjs/release. |
Socket Interception
#ideas
Over the years, I sat down to write Socket-based interceptor at least half a dozen times. It never ended fruitfully. This time, I decided to at least document my findings and struggles so I don’t spend so much time finding my way in the same water once more.
Intention
The intention here is very simple: the network in Node.js goes through
net.Socket
, no matter who and how initiates it.http.ClientRequest
constructs a Socket instance,fetch
(Undici) constructs a Socket instance, and even bi-directional communication like WebSockets is also implemented through Socket. Tapping intonet.Socket
directly would mean even less request-specific code.Obstacles
net.Socket
is omitted sometimesContradictory to my statement in the Intention, the call to
net.Socket
,net.connect()
ornet.createConnection()
is not always performed when a request is made in Node.js. For example, the very defaulthttp.get()
call will not result in either of those functions being called. There’s quite a chunk of internal logic in Node.js around creating and managing sockets (hence theAgent
), and I can only speculate that it doesn’t create a new socket but it depends on the already created one, somehow.Socket is too low-level
Socket handles Buffer sent/received over the network. We are talking about raw HTTP messages and raw
Readable
streams. Reading those isn’t a problem, recreating those is.Re-creating that, eventually, becomes a necessity because if you extend
net.Socket
and emulate a successful connection to a host (since the actual connection would error, the host is mocked), you end up managing the entire socket’s life-cycle by yourself.There are more parts in the socket that depend on its state. For instance, you have to have the
this._handle
set, which is a reference to aTCP
orPipe
wraps responsible for piping chunks through the socket.You end up implementing things like
handle.writeLatin1String
,handle.readStart()
,handle.close()
, and so forth. Honestly, this is too much.Good things
On the bright side, or, rather, the side I’ve never got to in order to prove it’s even worse, reading/writing chunks is a matter of manipulating the socket’s stream. The worst part about it is having to translate the HTTP request message to some consumable format, like
Request
, and translate the mockedResponse
to the HTTP response message. None of those are deal-breaking.Another good thing is that socket observer is trivial. It can be achieved with revokable Proxies spying at
.write
and.on(‘data')
methods/events. But observer alone is not enough to fulfill the interception requirements.Where to go from here
Socket-based interception is, technically, possible. But it’s a big question whether it’s worth the price. Maintaining such an interceptor would require a deep knowledge of Node.js internals and keeping track of whenever those change across Node.js releases.
We may require to revisit this in the light of WebSockets support, but given how there’s no standard protocol for WebSockets, and the most popular solutions implement it over HTTP/XHR polling anyway, perhaps Socket-based interception won’t be needed entirely.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: