Skip to content

Ensuring stdio transport closure despite server hanging. Fixing #271 #314

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

Open
wants to merge 8 commits into
base: main
Choose a base branch
from

Conversation

TomasRup
Copy link

Force closing the child process upon closing the stdio process

Motivation and Context

The issue was raised and reproducible in #271

How Has This Been Tested?

Added a manual test + tried adding the scenario from the issue with Microsoft's playwright-mcp

Breaking Changes

None

Types of changes

  • Bug fix (non-breaking change which fixes an issue)
  • New feature (non-breaking change which adds functionality)
  • Breaking change (fix or feature that would cause existing functionality to change)
  • Documentation update

Checklist

  • I have read the MCP Documentation
  • My code follows the repository's style guidelines
  • New and existing tests pass locally
  • I have added appropriate error handling
  • I have added or updated documentation as needed

Additional context

Copy link

@Skn0tt Skn0tt left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Sending SIGKILL immediately doesn't allow the server to perform graceful shutdown, I don't think we should do that. So let's give the process a couple of seconds to exit by itself, and only send SIGKILL if it hangs.

@TomasRup
Copy link
Author

@Skn0tt thanks, you are right, pushed a more graceful exit.

@TomasRup TomasRup requested a review from Skn0tt April 11, 2025 13:10
@TomasRup TomasRup requested a review from Skn0tt April 11, 2025 14:13
Copy link

@Skn0tt Skn0tt left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

After sleeping a couple nights over this, i'm not convinced this PR is the right approach. The gist of #271 is that close() doesn't block until the process is closed. This PR doesn't adress that, but instead adds graceful shutdown, which is a different issue. Before we implement graceful shutdown, I think we should coordinate with the project maintainers in a separate issue.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

2 participants