fix: avoid data race when watching request cancellation#2219
fix: avoid data race when watching request cancellation#2219beck-8 wants to merge 1 commit intorouter-for-me:mainfrom
Conversation
beck-8
commented
Mar 18, 2026
Summary of ChangesHello, I'm Gemini Code Assist1! I'm currently reviewing this pull request and will post my feedback shortly. In the meantime, here's a summary to help you and other reviewers quickly get up to speed! This pull request resolves a critical data race within the context cancellation mechanism, which previously caused a panic during concurrent request processing. The fix ensures that the context used for cancellation monitoring is correctly captured, thereby preventing unexpected runtime errors and improving the stability of API request handling. Highlights
🧠 New Feature in Public Preview: You can now enable Memory to help Gemini Code Assist learn from your team's feedback. This makes future code reviews more consistent and personalized to your project's style. Click here to enable Memory in your admin console. Using Gemini Code AssistThe full guide for Gemini Code Assist can be found on our documentation page, here are some quick tips. Invoking Gemini You can request assistance from Gemini at any point by creating a comment using either
Customization To customize Gemini Code Assist for GitHub experience, repository maintainers can create a configuration file and/or provide a custom code review style guide (such as PEP-8 for Python) by creating and adding files to a Limitations & Feedback Gemini Code Assist may make mistakes. Please leave feedback on any instances where its feedback is incorrect or counter productive. You can react with 👍 and 👎 on @gemini-code-assist comments. If you're interested in giving your feedback about your experience with Gemini Code Assist for GitHub and other Google products, sign up here. Footnotes
|
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Code Review
This pull request fixes a data race that occurs when watching for request cancellation. The race happens because the newCtx variable was being modified after being captured by a goroutine. The fix introduces a new variable cancelCtx to be used by the goroutine, which resolves the issue. I've added a suggestion to use a more idiomatic Go pattern for passing variables to goroutines, which can further improve code clarity and safety.
| cancelCtx := newCtx | ||
| if requestCtx != nil && requestCtx != parentCtx { | ||
| go func() { | ||
| select { | ||
| case <-requestCtx.Done(): | ||
| cancel() | ||
| case <-newCtx.Done(): | ||
| case <-cancelCtx.Done(): | ||
| } | ||
| }() | ||
| } |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
While this change correctly fixes the data race, a more idiomatic Go approach is to pass newCtx as an argument to the goroutine. This makes the variable capture explicit and is a safer pattern for concurrent code, as it avoids potential confusion with closure variable capturing.
if requestCtx != nil && requestCtx != parentCtx {
go func(ctxToWatch context.Context) {
select {
case <-requestCtx.Done():
cancel()
case <-ctxToWatch.Done():
}
}(newCtx)
}References
- To prevent data races when using variables inside a goroutine, it's a best practice to pass them as arguments to the goroutine's function. This creates a copy of the variable for the goroutine, ensuring it doesn't get affected by modifications in the parent goroutine.