Develop Reference

How to Properly Handle a Socket Client disconnecton in a Socket/Thread list?

I'm fairly new in trying to program with Sockets. I have a class whose instance variables include a client's socket and a client's thread, in the name called clientInfo. I created a list of clientInfos to keep track of the connections going into the server, where I've successfully managed to have multiple clients send messages to each other.
listOfClients.Add(new clientInfo(listen.Accept()));
The thread of the clientInfo is in an infinite loop to always receive incoming data, as shown in the code below. The idea that I had was, if I get an exception from the server trying to receive data from a disconnected client, all I should do is remove the client in the list causing the exception, right?
I would iterate through the clients to find exactly at which spot in the list the error is coming from by sending a heartbeat message. Should sending fail, I now have the exact location of the problematic socket and then I would then close their socket, abort the thread, and remove the clientInfo from the list, right? I hope that I have the right idea for that logic. However, when I do so, I've still yet to truly solve the exception which is why (I think) the code shoots itself in the foot by closing all other connections as well. Honestly, I'm at a loss of what to do to solve this.
There's also the unfortunate factor of sending packets to each socket in the list, where the ObjectDisposedException is raised should I close, abort, and remove a socket from a list. Is there a way to completely remove an item from the list as if it were never added in the first place? I assumed removeAt(i) would have done so, but I'm wrong about that.
I've read many answers stating that the best way to handle clients disconnecting is to use socket.close() and list.removeAt(i). My desired goal is that, even if 98 out of 100 clients unexpectedly lose connection, I would like the remaining two clients to still be able to send each other packets through the server. Am I on the right path or is my approach completely wrong?
byte[] buff;
int readBytes;
while (true) {
try {
buff = new byte[clientSocket.SendBufferSize];
readBytes = clientSocket.Receive(buff);
//This line raises an exception should a client disconnect unexpectedly.
if (readBytes > 0) {
Packet pack = new Packet(buff);
handleData(pack);
}
}
catch(SocketException e) {
Console.WriteLine("A client disconnected!");
for (int i = 0; i < listOfClients.Count; i++) {
try {
string message = "This client is alive!";
Packet heartbeat = new Packet(Packet.PacketType.Send, "Server");
heartbeat.data.Add(message);
clientSocket.Send(heartbeat.toByte());
}
catch (SocketException ex) {
Console.WriteLine("Removing " + listOfClients[i].clientEndPointy.Address + ":" + listOfClients[i].clientEndPointy.Port);
//listOfClients[i].clientSocket.Disconnect(reuseSocket: true);
listOfClients[i].clientSocket.Close();
listOfClients[i].clientThread.Abort();
listOfClients.RemoveAt(i);
}
}
}
}

NetworkStream exceptions and return codes

I'm trying to educate myself on the intricacies of reading from a NetworkStream, and understanding the various ways in which problems can occur. I have the following code:
public async Task ReceiveAll()
{
var ns = this.tcp.GetStream();
var readBuffer = new byte[1000];
while (true)
{
int bytesRead;
try
{
bytesRead = await ns.ReadAsync(readBuffer, 0, readBuffer.Length);
if (bytesRead == 0)
{
// Remote disconnection A?
break;
}
}
catch (IOException)
{
// Remote disconnection B?
break;
}
catch (ObjectDisposedException)
{
// Local disconnection?
break;
}
/*Do something with readBuffer */
}
}
I've marked three points in the code where the program says 'something has gone awry, there is no point continuing'.
The 'Local disconnection' isn't exactly something wrong, it will happen when I locally close the socket which is the only way to exit the loop under normal circumstances. I don't think anything else can cause this, so I think I'm safe to just swallow the exception.
The two 'Remote disconnection' points are what I'm not sure about. I know ReadAsync will return 0 if the connection is terminated remotely (A), but the IOException also seems to fire in some circumstances. If my remote client is a C# console, then closing the socket seems to make 'A' happen, and closing the console window seems to be make 'B' happen. I'm not sure I understand what the difference is between these scenarios?
Finally, a bit of a general question, but is there anything glaringly wrong with this bit of code or my above assumptions?
Thanks.
EDIT: In response to my use of ObjectDisposedException to abort out of the loop:
This is what my 'Stop' method looks like (from the same class as above):
public void Stop()
{
this.tcp.Close();
}
This causes the pending 'ReadAsync' to except with ObjectDisposedException. AFAIK there isn't any other way to abort this. Changing this to:
public void Stop()
{
this.tcp.Client.Shutdown(SocketShutdown.Both);
}
Doesn't appear to actually do anything to the pending call, it just continues waiting.

When NetworkStream returns 0, this means that the socket has received a disconnect packet from the remote party. This is how network connections are supposed to end.
The correct way to shut down the connection (especially if you are in a full-duplex conversation) is to call socket.Shutdown(SocketShutdown.Send) and give the remote party some time to close their send channel. This ensures that you receive any pending data instead of slamming the connection shut. ObjectDisposedException should never be part of the normal application flow.
Any exceptions thrown indicate that something went wrong, and I think it's safe to say you can no longer rely on the current connection.
TL;DR
I don't see anything wrong with your code, but (especially in full-duplex communication) I'd shut down the send channel and wait for a 0-byte packet to prevent receiving ObjectDisposedExceptions by default:
use tcp.Shutdown(SocketShutdown.Send) to tell the remote party you want to disconnect
your loop may still receive data that the remote party was sending
your loop will, if everything went right, then receive a 0-byte packet, indicating that the remote party is disconnecting
loop terminates the right way
you may want to decide to dispose the socket after a certain amount of time, if you haven't received the 0-byte packet

No idea why tcpClient isn't working for me

I've tried checking the server:port with telnet and I'm getting the expected results. So either writer.Write() or reader.ReadLine() isn't working cause I get nothing from the server.
TcpClient socket = new TcpClient(hostname, port);
if (!socket.Connected) {
Console.WriteLine("Failed to connect!");
return;
}
TextReader reader = new StreamReader(socket.GetStream());
TextWriter writer = new StreamWriter(socket.GetStream());
writer.Write("PING");
writer.Flush();
String line = null;
while ((line = reader.ReadLine()) != null) {
Console.WriteLine(line);
}
Console.WriteLine("done");
EDIT: I might have found the issue. This code was based off examples I found on the web. I tried another irc server: open.ircnet.net:6669 and I got a response:
:openirc.snt.utwente.nl 020 * :Please wait while we process your connection.
It seems as if I probably need to run the reader in a Thread so it can just constantly wait for a response. However it does seem weird that the program got caught on the while loop without ever printing done to the console.

I think you need to provide further details. I'm just going to assume that because you can easily telnet to the server using the same port your problem lies in the evaluation of the Connected property...
if (!socket.Connected) {
Console.WriteLine("Failed to connect!");
return;
}
this is wrong because Microsoft clearly specifies in the documentation that the Connected property is not reliable
Because the Connected property only reflects the state of the connection as of the most recent operation, you should attempt to send or receive a message to determine the current state. After the message send fails, this property no longer returns true. Note that this behavior is by design. You cannot reliably test the state of the connection because, in the time between the test and a send/receive, the connection could have been lost. Your code should assume the socket is connected, and gracefully handle failed transmissions.
That said, you should not use this property to determine the state of the connection. Needless to say that using this property to control the flow of your console app will result in unexpected results.
Suggestion
Remove the evaluation of the Connected property
Wrap your GetStream and Write method calls in a try/catch block to handle network communication errors

reader.ReadLine() will just wait for any data to arrive. If no data arrive, it seems to hang. That's a feature of tcp (I don't like it either). You need to find out how the end of the message is defined and stop based on that end criterion. Be careful, the end of message identifier may be split into two or more lines...

RFC for ping says that the server may not respond to it & such connections has to be closed after a time. Please check the RFC: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc1459#section-4.6.2

Is it good practice to put try-catch in a loop until all statements in the try block is executed without any exceptions?

I was trying to develop a multicast receiver program and socket initialization was done as shown below:
public void initializeThread()
{
statuscheckthread = new Thread(SetSocketOptions);
statuscheckthread.IsBackground = true;
}
private void Form1_Load(object sender, EventArgs e)
{
rxsock = new Socket(AddressFamily.InterNetwork, SocketType.Dgram, ProtocolType.Udp);
iep = new IPEndPoint(IPAddress.Any, 9191);
rxsock.Bind(iep);
ep = (EndPoint)iep;
initializeThread();
statuscheckthread.Start();
}
public void SetSocketOptions()
{
initializeThread(); //re-initializes thread thus making it not alive
while (true)
{
if (NetworkInterface.GetIsNetworkAvailable())
{
bool sockOptnSet = false;
while (!sockOptnSet)
{
try
{
rxsock.SetSocketOption(SocketOptionLevel.IP, SocketOptionName.AddMembership, new MulticastOption(IPAddress.Parse("224.50.50.50")));
rxsock.SetSocketOption(SocketOptionLevel.IP, SocketOptionName.MulticastTimeToLive, 64);
sockOptnSet = true;
}
catch
{
//Catch exception here
}
}
}
break; // Break out from loop once socket options are set
}
}
When my PC is not connected to a network, SetSocketOption method was throwing exception and even after network is connected,
I was unable to receive data because socket options are not set.
To avoid this I used a thread which runs in the background checking
for network availability and once network is available, it sets the socket options.
It works properly in some PC's but in some others, NetworkInterface.GetIsNetworkAvailable()
returned true before network got connected
(while network was being identified) .
So, to make sure Socket options are set, I used a bool variable sockOptnSet
which is set as
true if all the statements in the try block is executed as shown inside the method public void SetSocketOptions()
This program works fine in all PC's I tried, but I am doubtful about how much I can rely on this to work.
My questions are:
1) Is this good practice?
2) If not, what are the possible errors or problems it may cause? And how can I implement it in a better way?

Is this a good practice?
No, not a good practice. The vast majority of exceptions, including your first one, fall in the category of vexing exceptions. Software is supposed to work, worked well when you tested it, but doesn't on the user's machine. Something went wrong but you do not know what and there isn't anything meaningful that you can do about it. Trying to keep your program going is not useful, it cannot do the job it is supposed to do. In your case, there's no hope that the socket is ever going to receive data when there is no network. And, as you found out, trying to work around the problem just begets more problems. That's normal.
If this is bad practice, how can I implement it in a better way?
You need help from a human. The user is going to have to setup the machine to provide a working network connection. This requires a user interface, you must have a way to tell a human what he needs to do to solve your problem. You can make that as intricate or as simple as you desire. Just an error message, a verbatim copy of the Exception.Message can be enough. Writing an event handler for the AppDomain.CurrentDomain.UnhandledException event is a very good (and required) strategy. Microsoft spent an enormous amount of effort to make exception messages as clear and helpful as possible, even localizing them for you in the user's native language, you want to take advantage of that. Even if the exception message is mystifying, a quick Google query on the message text returns hundreds of hits. With this event handler in place, you don't have to do anything special. Your program automatically terminates and your user knows what to do about it.
You can certainly make it more intricate, you discovered that SetSocketOption() is liable to fail right after the network becomes available but works when you wait long enough. So this is actually an error condition that you can work around, just by waiting long enough. Whether you should write the code to handle this is something that you have to decide for yourself. It is something you write when you have enough experience with the way your program behaves, you never write it up front. Usually as a result from feedback from the users of your program.

Some good advice in the comments, lets' expand on it.
Firstly, I would put all this socket code in to its' own class, outside of the form. This makes it its' own entity and semantically easier to understand. This class could have a property Initialised, which is initially set to false. The first thing you do in your form is call an Initialise method on this class which attempts to set socket options and catches the relevant exceptions if the network is not available. If it is available, we set our Initialised property to true.
If not available, we set a single timeout (see System.Threading.Timer) that calls this same function (potentially with a retry count) after 'x' seconds. Once again we'll find ourselves back in this Initialise function, perhaps with a retry count mentioned at the beginning. Once again, if it is available, we're good - if not, set the timer again. Eventually, after 'x' retries if we're not initialised we can throw an exception or set some other failure property to indicate that we can't proceed.
Your Form class can periodically check (or hook in to an event) to determine whether the socket is now ready for communication. In case of failure you can gracefully quit out, or because our class is nice and abstracted, attempt to start the whole process again.

How to check if a server is listening without exception handling

I'm working on two apps that connect to eachother using TCP. At one point, one of them is trying to connect using a TcpClient, but the other app is not guaranteed to have started listening yet (using TcpListener).
My first attempt was this:
TcpClient c = null;
while (true)
{
try
{
c = new TcpClient();
c.NoDelay = true;
c.Connect( ip, port );
break;
}
catch (SocketException ex)
{
Console.WriteLine(string.Format("Could not connect to {0}:{1}, retrying...", ip, port));
Thread.Sleep( 500 );
}
}
However, the problem with this is that it relies on exception handling which is a bit of a nuisance for me, because I have VS set up to catch any thrown exceptions ("Debug -> Exceptions..." menu). So every time it tries to connect, it breaks into VS and I have to press continue.
The exception I get is:
No connection could be made because the target machine actively refused it 127.0.0.1:50000
I would imagine that there would be a way to check if a server is listening on a specific port without actually trying to connect to it. I understand that just checking wouldn't be enough anyway - the server could go down between the check and the connect attempt, but it would still be much better for me while I'm developing it.
Or something like this:
TcpClient tcpClient = new TcpClient();
while ( !tcpClient.TryConnect(....) )
{ Thread.Sleep(1000); }
Analogous to this:
if (bool.TryParse( "false" ))
{ ... }
I also tried using async methods (Begin/End Connect) and setting the timeout for the ManualResetEvent manually, but that didn't work either. I've scoured the internets but I haven't been able to find a solution to this problem, which is why I'm finally posting here :)

The problem being that VS is breaking on the Exception? You you can always have VS ignore a specific family of Exceptions.
In VS, in the Debug Menu, choose "Exceptions..." and in the dialog presented you can control this.

I was going to suggest not catching an exception, so before I suggested that I test it myself, and if you set it to throw all exceptions even if you don't throw an exception its all exceptions are still being thrown. I will have to agree with Shiv Kumar, either adjust your settings while you debug your application, or accept the limitations of what you are doing.
The reason bool.TryParse works is it verifys each and every character, similarly to how Int32.TryParse makes sure that each character in the string is 0-9 or any other valid numerical symbol.
You could of course write your own networking class and not throw an exception when the connection fails.
TryParse will not throw an exception, you must catch any exception that is thrown if you use bool.Parse by try{}catch{} otherwise if you attempt to parse something that is not a boolean value it will throw an unhandled exception. TryParse was added later in the history of .NET, Parse is more of the classic method, allowing the programmer to handle all unexpected input and to validate input before trying to parse the data.
I should add that TryParse will return false if its unable to parse the value at both the method's result is false and the out variable I do believe is false.This is at least the case with Int32
http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/system.boolean.tryparse.aspx
I guess the point of pointing out how TryParse and Parse works is that they are entirely different beasts compare to TcpClient. I suppose I should clarify that the basic validation process is similar, except one throws an exception and the other one doesn't and of course one returns what was actually parsed.