Stop useless panicking in context and render

[eeonevision]

When user resets connection to the server, the go's http returns "broken pipe -> write tcp...". There is no needed to panicking because it's common case.

Instead of this I suggest to catch any errors, excepting broken pipe (syscall.EPIPE error), in server-side initialised logger.

This will improve overall performance of gin and will very helpful to log any other render errors to log.

[codecov[bot]]

Codecov Report

Merging #2150 (f32da2d) into master (3010cbd) will increase coverage by 0.00%. The diff coverage is 100.00%.

@@           Coverage Diff           @@
##           master    #2150   +/-   ##
=======================================
  Coverage   98.63%   98.63%           
=======================================
  Files          42       42           
  Lines        3140     3141    +1     
=======================================
+ Hits         3097     3098    +1     
  Misses         29       29           
  Partials       14       14           

Flag	Coverage Δ
	98.63% <100.00%> (+<0.01%)	:arrow_up:
go-1.16	∅ <ø> (?)
go-1.17	98.53% <100.00%> (+<0.01%)	:arrow_up:
go-1.18	98.53% <100.00%> (+<0.01%)	:arrow_up:
go-1.19	98.63% <100.00%> (+<0.01%)	:arrow_up:
macos-latest	98.63% <100.00%> (+0.09%)	:arrow_up:
ubuntu-latest	98.63% <100.00%> (+<0.01%)	:arrow_up:

Flags with carried forward coverage won't be shown. Click here to find out more.

Impacted Files	Coverage Δ
context.go	97.97% <100.00%> (+0.01%)	:arrow_up:
render/json.go	82.75% <100.00%> (-0.39%)	:arrow_down:

Help us with your feedback. Take ten seconds to tell us how you rate us. Have a feature suggestion? Share it here.

[LiFeAiR]

This PR close two issues: https://github.com/gin-gonic/gin/issues/1827 https://github.com/gin-gonic/gin/issues/1770

[daheige]

When user resets connection to the server, the go's http returns "broken pipe -> write tcp...". There is no needed to panicking because it's common case.

Instead of this I suggest to catch any errors, excepting broken pipe (syscall.EPIPE error), in server-side initialised logger.

This will improve overall performance of gin and will very helpful to log any other render errors to This processing method is very good. In 2019, I found that there was a problem with the panic processing here, which often led to the online service CPU full, abnormal service, and online failure. I also mentioned issue to gin in 2019, but it hasn't been solved. Now from your submission, it's really a great way to deal with it. I support this mode. Thank you very much

When user resets connection to the server, the go's http returns "broken pipe -> write tcp...". There is no needed to panicking because it's common case.

Instead of this I suggest to catch any errors, excepting broken pipe (syscall.EPIPE error), in server-side initialised logger.

This will improve overall performance of gin and will very helpful to log any other render errors to log.

This processing method is very good. In 2019, I found that there was a problem with the panic processing here, which often led to the online service CPU full, abnormal service, and online failure. I also mentioned issue to gin in 2019, but it hasn't been solved. Now from your submission, it's really a great way to deal with it. I support this mode. Thank you very much!

[Tevic]

Is there any update of this PR?

[danmux]

This will also close https://github.com/gin-gonic/gin/issues/3351 and https://github.com/gin-gonic/gin/issues/2676

[mayankvaid88]

Can we merge this PR ? Panic is redundant. Error can be handled gracefully.

[danmux]

@mayankvaid88 - I hope you are asking can we merge the PR? :)

[mayankvaid88]

@mayankvaid88 - I hope you are asking can we merge the PR? :)

Yeah. My bad :)

[eeonevision]

Hello! Thanks to all for paying attention to this PR. Seems like our maintainers just forgot about this issue in many others.

@appleboy, @thinkerou could you merge this into the main branch, please? If not, it would be nice to provide some feedback to us.

UPD: Fixed unit tests and merged upstream branch into forked.

[krupyansky]

@appleboy @thinkerou approve the merge request please.

[thinkerou]

@appleboy please review the pull request, thanks!

[krupyansky]

@appleboy please review the pull request, thanks!

[MatheusLFreitas]

People, do we really need this approval from @appleboy? Isn't there other contributors that could approve this for us? This is too important and there is several related issues and we are blocked because we are still waiting for a person that is not responding for over 4 years now. Couldn't this review be assigned to somebody else?

For example @danmux or @vkd or @daheige

[danmux]

For example @danmux or @vkd or @daheige

It has to be one of the maintainers before it can be merged

[appleboy]

Thanks all guys. We will release v1.9 version asap.