The ever-connecting WebSocket

This is another of these „funny how we live in a time, where we take connectivity for granted“-posts. But what is taken for granted, usually still is somewhat cumbersome under the hood. As in our current episode.

Admittedly, the arrival of WebSockets in the last decade were one of the more significant steps towards a fluid internet experience. The WebSocket protocol is an advancement from the old „some client asks some server to handle some stuff“ way in that it is bi-directional: After mutual agreement („hand shake“), the connection stays open for the server to send data to the client, without the client having to ask first. Consider the server to be a complex application which processes lots of tasks and from time to time creates some „news“ for the client, which the user might want to read in real time.

Nowadays, the WebSocket itself is long established. What surprised us a few weeks, however – and what made us invest several days in actual research – is their behaviour when paired with loss of internet connection. Which had quite some surprise for us.

Now, this is a real scenario for one of our customers. You have a web application running on a mobile device, and this device moves in and out of WiFi-accessible areas all the time. The application should just show this circumstance and attempt to reconnect. Now the straightforward thing was to use the native WebSocket API class, or the “websocket” npm package (which acts as a small wrapper around that API); this comes with a small enough set of event handlers (onopen, onclose, onerror, onmessage). but the less obvious thing was: How is “connection lost” actually noticed? Is it onerror? Is it onclose?

In reality, this is not clear at all. Depending on the type of internet loss, there might occur a delay of several minutes until onclose fires, and onerror alone seems not to imply any closing at all. Furthermore, it depended on the type of internet loss. How do you even simulate “mobile device walked away from WiFi” as accurately as possible? While disconnecting our WiFi seemed to register with almost no delay, this was too far from the real scenario. It was only after switching to an ethernet cable and then unplugging it, that we saw the effect. And we found that the onclose event is actually quite confused if we reconnect our cable before it has fired. It could happen, then, that one old onclose did not fire until a new WebSocket was already opened, i.e. not a good indicator of “no connection” at all.

This confusion made it clear that the WebSocket technology is not as well defined as we thought it was. We actually resorted to one of the most basic ideas in order to notice our “(dis)connected” state: Continuously checking for it. Indeed – as low-level as it sounds.

We found that following solution to work quite well:

• The server continuously sends a “heart beat” over the WebSocket. We are aware that there is a websocket.ping() method but we didn’t want to run into more surprises here.
• WebSocket handling is done inside our own module which
  • wraps the WebSocket onmessage event in order to expect that heart beat or else “the watchdog gets angry”
  • has its own onclose event which communicates the problem to the outside as early as possible
  • also, instantly tries to reconnect
  • wraps the WebSocket onclose event in order to make it quiet if the watchdog gets angry and it would fire too late; but otherwise fire (if the watchdog is happy and the WebSocket is closed normally).

The latter implements Loose Coupling / the Principle of Least Knowledge / Separation of Concerns. We do not want our module to have a much larger interface than the original WebSocket implementation. In fact, the only information from our application to our new module is “is the user logged in”? In our application, this is part of the Redux state, but we want our module to know neither of React, Redux or other magic; it should be vanilla TypeScript in order be testable, or even better, so straightforward that any tests would be trivial.

So there we have it. If you are interested in the code, I’d be glad to share that, but the actual deed here was in finding out what we actually need.

I have no idea why the WebSocket specification is the way it is, but if you ever encounter such a problem, that would be my advice – take the thing, put it in your own thing, and couple the things loosely.

But anyway, it was fun to realize that even in 2021, a two-way-connected client-server system still might need a small guardian that tells you whether everything’s fine.

Addendum: Monkey-patching an existing class in TypeScript

I leave that here for quick reference. As stated above, we needed to equip our websocket instances with a flag to ignore their onclose events. Now some sources might readily give you the quick advice to do it as:

const socket = new w3cwebsocket(...);
(socket as any).silent = false;

But why use TypeScript if you want to work around the type system anyway? Just extend it.

class CustomWebSocket extends w3cwebsocket {
    silent: boolean = false;
    constructor(url: string) {
        super(url);
    }
}

const socket = new CustomWebSocket(...);