Care to elaborate why this would fix the situation ? This seems equivalent.

The error handler was capturing the things that were reported as leaking in outmoded/discuss#433. By removing the arrow function, the closure goes away, and the memory associated with those things can be released.

JS is so stupid sometimes... Good catch !

So this was an actual leak?

It only affects you if you are creating and removing many servers. If you are creating a new server per test then those were never released from memory. There is no issue in production.

@sjuchno makes sense thanks!

Can someone explain this in more detail? Is it because request had a reference to protect and this extra closure wouldn't let the ref to the request object get GCed?

I made a mistake. I made the change to this.domain.on('error', this._onError) and verified in the heap snapshot that the leak was gone. However, when I ran the tests, there were failures, and I had to add the bind(this). This means that the domain still has a reference to all of the hapi objects, and the leak is still there.

The problem is that there are 193 domain objects left around. Most are from lab, but some from protect.js are getting out. From the heap snapshots, it looks like it happens through a list of Immediate objects (setImmediate() in Node core makes them) that connect to lab domains. Still need to do more digging.

It looks like lab is adding a bunch of Immediates to its domain here. Some of those Immediates have _idlePrev pointers to other Immediate objects that were created by hapi, whose domain pointer references the domain created in protect.js. lab never removes the Immediates that it adds, so they stay here, along with the references to all of the hapi stuff. Adding a couple activeDomain.remove(immed); here seems to let the hapi domain references go.

@geek what do you think?

@cjihrig sounds like a good change to me... we didn't bother with the removal likely because the process is so short lived with lab

Should this be revered in hapi?

There's no harm in writing it like this. It still saves on an unnecessary closure.

This thread has been automatically locked due to inactivity. Please open a new issue for related bugs or questions following the new issue template instructions.