Forgive a bit of ignorance, it's been a bit since I've touched Go, but this looks awfully similar to a Java CountdownLatch [1]. Is this just a glorified Go port of that or am I missing something vital here?
They basically don't backport anything for Go, but the quid pro quo for that is that the backwards compatibility is pretty strong so upgrades should be safe. I have seen one serious issue from it, but still it's the language I'm the most confident to do an upgrade and expect things to Just Work afterwards.
evanelias · 3h ago
You can just use golang.org/x/sync/errgroup instead, which has always provided this style of use.
errgroup also has other niceties like error propagation, context cancellation, and concurrency limiting.
Cyph0n · 2h ago
Context cancellation is not always desirable. I personally have been bitten multiple times by the default behavior of errgroup.
CamouflagedKiwi · 1h ago
You have to explicitly propagate the group's context if you want it to cancel. You can just not do that if you don't want - there certainly are cases for that.
porridgeraisin · 2h ago
errgroup cancels the whole task if even one subtask fails however. That is not desirable always.
evanelias · 56m ago
If the context cancellation is undesirable, you just choose not to use WithContext, as the sibling comment mentions.
You could also just make your subtask function return nil always, if you just want to get the automatic bookkeeping call pattern (like WaitGroup.Go from Golang 1.25), plus optional concurrency limiting.
Also note, even if a subtask function returns an error, the errgroup Wait blocking semantics are identical to those of a WaitGroup. Wait will return the first error when it returns, but it doesn't unblock early on first error.
Groxx · 1h ago
It does not, which is easy to verify from the source. Every func passed in is always run (with the exception of TryGo which is explicitly "maybe").
At best, using the optional, higher-effort errgroup.WithContext will cancel the context but still run all of your funcs. If you don't want that for one of the funcs, or some component of them, just don't use the context.
cedws · 3h ago
You can wrap WaitGroup if you really want to.
stefanos82 · 3h ago
Can you provide an example please?
listeria · 3h ago
something like this would do it:
package main
import (
"sync"
"time"
)
type WaitGroup struct {
sync.WaitGroup
}
func (wg *WaitGroup) Go(fn func()) {
wg.Add(1)
go func() {
defer wg.Done()
fn()
}()
}
func main() {
var wg WaitGroup
wg.Go(func() { time.Sleep(1 * time.Second) })
wg.Wait()
}
Thank you @listeria, today I learned about struct embedding lol!
genghisjahn · 1h ago
I rediscover this about once a year and am always so happy when I do.
danenania · 1h ago
I like WaitGroup as a concept, but I often end up using a channel instead for clearer error handling. Something like:
errCh := make(chan error)
for _, url := range urls {
go func(url string){
errCh <- http.Get(url)
}(url)
}
for range urls {
err := <-errCh
if err != nil {
// handle error
}
}
Should I be using WaitGroup instead? If I do, don't I still need an error channel anyway—in which case it feels redundant? Or am I thinking about this wrong? I rarely encounter concurrency situations that the above pattern doesn't seem sufficient for.
How you handle err here? If you return, the go routines will leak
danenania · 1h ago
Ah, good point—should be using a buffered channel to avoid that:
errCh := make(chan error, len(urls))
unsnap_biceps · 36m ago
buffered channels won't help here. That's just how many results can be buffered before the remaining results can be added to the channel. It doesn't wait until all of them are done before returning a result to the consumer.
danenania · 16m ago
> It doesn't wait until all of them are done before returning a result to the consumer.
Right, but it prevents goroutine leaks. In these situations I'm usually fine with bailing on the first error, but I grant that's not always desirable. If it's not, I would collect and join errors and return those along with partial results (if those are useful).
porridgeraisin · 2h ago
Love this. Majority of concurrency in a usual web service is implemented using waitgroups IME (see below) This will greatly simplify it.
var wg sync.WaitGroup
wg.Add(1)
go func(){
callService1(inputs, outParameter)
wg.Done()
}
// Repeat for services 2 through N
wg.Wait()
// Combine all outputs
BTW, this can already be done with a wrapper type
type WaitGroup struct { sync.WaitGroup }
func (wg *WaitGroup) Go(fn func()) {
wg.Add(1)
go func() {
fn()
wg.Done()
}()
}
Since you're doing struct embedding you can call methods of sync.WaitGroup on the new WaitGroup type as well.
nikolayasdf123 · 3h ago
> wg := sync.WaitGroup{}
just `var wg sync.WaitGroup`, it is cleaner this way
mr90210 · 3h ago
Oh you are one of those. The nit picker. This is not at a PR review mate.
nikolayasdf123 · 3h ago
"one of those", name calling, telling me what to say,
cool it down a little. touch some grass. and hopefully you will see beauty in Go zero-values :P
fozdenn · 3h ago
doesn't this point to a bigger problem that there are two ways of doing the same thing?
unsnap_biceps · 37m ago
multiple ways of doing something isn't inherently bad.
For example, if you want to set a variable to the number of seconds in seven hours, you could just set the variable to 25200, or you could set it to 60 * 60 * 7. The expanded version might be clearer in the code context, but in the end they do exactly the same thing.
pests · 34m ago
Your math equation turned the asterisks into italics.
unsnap_biceps · 29m ago
Whoops, fixed. Thanks for the note
nikolayasdf123 · 3h ago
no. it is different thing. container-agnostic zero value vs struct init.
dwb · 3h ago
Why?
nikolayasdf123 · 3h ago
zero value. container-agnostic initialization. say your type is not struct anymore, you would not have to change the way you intialize it. what you care here is zero value, and let the type figure out that it is zero and use methods appropriately. and it is just more clean this way
That is a much better argument than saying it is "more clean", which doesn't mean anything. I don't necessarily agree, because I don't think zero values are a good feature of the language, and even if they were this is a completely trivial case. But at least I don't have to work out what "cleanliness" is.
a-poor · 2h ago
This means you can't pass variables in as function arguments. Even the example in the official go docs doesn't handle the scope correctly:
func main() {
var wg sync.WaitGroup
var urls = []string{
"http://www.golang.org/",
"http://www.google.com/",
"http://www.example.com/",
}
for _, url := range urls {
// Launch a goroutine to fetch the URL.
wg.Go(func() {
// Fetch the URL.
http.Get(url)
})
}
// Wait for all HTTP fetches to complete.
wg.Wait()
}
[1] https://docs.oracle.com/javase/8/docs/api/java/util/concurre...
[0] https://docs.oracle.com/javase/7/docs/api/java/util/concurre...
What is quite sad is that we cannot add it ourselves as it's so simple of what they have done:
errgroup also has other niceties like error propagation, context cancellation, and concurrency limiting.
You could also just make your subtask function return nil always, if you just want to get the automatic bookkeeping call pattern (like WaitGroup.Go from Golang 1.25), plus optional concurrency limiting.
Also note, even if a subtask function returns an error, the errgroup Wait blocking semantics are identical to those of a WaitGroup. Wait will return the first error when it returns, but it doesn't unblock early on first error.
At best, using the optional, higher-effort errgroup.WithContext will cancel the context but still run all of your funcs. If you don't want that for one of the funcs, or some component of them, just don't use the context.
But channels already do the waiting part for you.
Right, but it prevents goroutine leaks. In these situations I'm usually fine with bailing on the first error, but I grant that's not always desirable. If it's not, I would collect and join errors and return those along with partial results (if those are useful).
just `var wg sync.WaitGroup`, it is cleaner this way
cool it down a little. touch some grass. and hopefully you will see beauty in Go zero-values :P
For example, if you want to set a variable to the number of seconds in seven hours, you could just set the variable to 25200, or you could set it to 60 * 60 * 7. The expanded version might be clearer in the code context, but in the end they do exactly the same thing.
here is google guideline: https://google.github.io/styleguide/go/best-practices#declar...
You need to use this pattern instead:
https://go.dev/blog/loopvar-preview
Well, you could...
> You need to use this pattern insteadWhy? Seems rather redundant. It is not like WaitGroup.Go exists in earlier versions.