updates.ForEach is not a function #284

dcparga · 2017-02-08T22:28:05Z

Bug Report

I have read:

I am using the latest version of the library.

Expected Behavior

The process should be able to run without problem and indefinitely without throwing an error.

Actual Behavior

After the whole day running without problems, around 9pm my process start to throw this message continuously:

Unhandled rejection TypeError: updates.forEach is not a function
at _lastRequest._getUpdates.then.updates (/app/node_modules/node-telegram-bot-api/src/telegramPolling.js:102:17)
at tryCatcher (/app/node_modules/bluebird/js/release/util.js:16:23)
at Promise._settlePromiseFromHandler (/app/node_modules/bluebird/js/release/promise.js:510:31)
at Promise._settlePromise (/app/node_modules/bluebird/js/release/promise.js:567:18)
at Promise._settlePromise0 (/app/node_modules/bluebird/js/release/promise.js:612:10)
at Promise._settlePromises (/app/node_modules/bluebird/js/release/promise.js:691:18)
at Async._drainQueue (/app/node_modules/bluebird/js/release/async.js:133:16)
at Async._drainQueues (/app/node_modules/bluebird/js/release/async.js:143:10)
at Immediate.Async.drainQueues (/app/node_modules/bluebird/js/release/async.js:17:14)
at runCallback (timers.js:649:20)
at tryOnImmediate (timers.js:622:5)
at processImmediate [as _immediateCallback] (timers.js:594:5)

GochoMugo · 2017-02-09T13:16:54Z

Are you able to reproduce the bug?

dcparga · 2017-02-09T13:27:54Z

Not in an easy way. I'm not sure why it happens. The only thing I know it happened to me twice, both of them at almost the same time on two conseqcutives days (around 9pm CET).

I'm not sure, but I think is the same error that appears when you have more than one instance of the bot running.

GochoMugo · 2017-02-09T13:36:09Z

If you want to run multiple instances of the application, please use WebHooks. Using polling is not scalable. See more help information on scaling (Sorry! Help information is a bit incomplete! We really need help in that area.).

Otherwise, it will be hard for us to fix the bug (comfortably) if we can not pinpoint why and how it occurs. We need to investigate more on this.

dcparga · 2017-02-09T13:46:19Z

Gocho, maybe I have explained myself wrong. The thing is that I don't want to run multiple instances of my bot, only one. But I think that the error that appears is the same as if I run more than one. I just said that to see if it could help to understand better the error.

I'll try to give more information if I'm able to get a better understading of the error. I just wanted to see if someone could bring some light on the cause of the error.

BTW, I'm going to try the webhook, just to see if the behaviour improves and errors are avoided.

lokhmakov · 2017-02-10T08:51:16Z

This simple script:

import TelegramBot from 'node-telegram-bot-api'

const token = `...`

const bot = new TelegramBot(token, { polling: true })

Result:

Unhandled rejection TypeError: updates.forEach is not a function
at _lastRequest._getUpdates.then.updates (PROJECT_DIR/node_modules/node-telegram-bot-api/src/telegramPolling.js:102:17)
at tryCatcher (PROJECT_DIR/node_modules/bluebird/js/release/util.js:16:23)
at Promise._settlePromiseFromHandler (PROJECT_DIR/node_modules/bluebird/js/release/promise.js:510:31)
at Promise._settlePromise (PROJECT_DIR/node_modules/bluebird/js/release/promise.js:567:18)
at Promise._settlePromise0 (PROJECT_DIR/node_modules/bluebird/js/release/promise.js:612:10)
at Promise._settlePromises (PROJECT_DIR/node_modules/bluebird/js/release/promise.js:691:18)
at Async._drainQueue (PROJECT_DIR/node_modules/bluebird/js/release/async.js:133:16)
at Async._drainQueues (PROJECT_DIR/node_modules/bluebird/js/release/async.js:143:10)
at Immediate.Async.drainQueues (PROJECT_DIR/node_modules/bluebird/js/release/async.js:17:14)
at runCallback (timers.js:651:20)
at tryOnImmediate (timers.js:624:5)
at processImmediate [as _immediateCallback] (timers.js:596:5)

Month ago all works fine.

lokhmakov · 2017-02-10T08:56:36Z

telegramPolling.js:102 updates return boolean true not array

mjanssen · 2017-02-10T08:56:48Z

Having the same issue after updating to 0.26.
The _getUpdates() function is returning a bool instead of an useable array. No clue why...
I also noticed the setWebHook request is called every time it's polling as well, even though I'm not using a webook.

lokhmakov · 2017-02-10T09:01:28Z

Stack trace upper:

src/telegram.js:172

data is

{ ok: true, result: true, description: 'Webhook is already deleted' }

mjanssen · 2017-02-10T09:08:35Z

Seems to be working fine now. Didn't change anything 🤔

dcparga · 2017-02-10T09:19:15Z

I've been using the polling option for a whole day whitout problems, it just started to fail suddenly, my app crashed, and after rebooting it, it worked again like a charm. That make me thing that it could be something related with Telegram servers, but I cannot assure it. Is just a intuition.

lokhmakov · 2017-02-10T09:22:46Z

I think something wrong with logic of enable polling. Polling wait array of polling results but get in result boolean. May be telegram servers automatically delete webHook and no need to call it manually

lokhmakov · 2017-02-10T09:23:07Z

Try to change polling and return if result data not array

lokhmakov · 2017-02-10T09:28:38Z

Change src/telegramPolling.js:97 to:

  _polling() {
    this._lastRequest = this
      ._getUpdates()
      .then(updates => {
        if (!(!!updates && Array === updates.constructor)) return
        this._lastUpdate = Date.now();
        debug('polling data %j', updates);
        updates.forEach(update => {

And all works good.

GochoMugo · 2017-02-10T09:30:58Z

Thanks to this discussion that I have identified the bug. Yes, this is a bug in the library.

This occurs when the bot, while polling, tries to delete the already-set webhook, so as to be able to get updates. I have been able to reproduce this bug (a test for this bug will be added) and am working to push a fix for this.

@dcparga

Bug: During polling, deleting the already-set webhook, caused the `TelegramBotPolling#_getUpdates()` return an unexpected value. We expect the method to return an array (in the `.then()` clause). However, deleting the webhook returns its value, which is an object, from the method `_getUpdates()`. Fix: Simply retry the polling request and return the promise. Notes: Should we use recursion? I do not think so. Why? The chances of getting the error (having a webhook set) AGAIN is quite rare. And if it happens, there must be some problem with different instances invoking polling and webhook simultaneously. In that case, we wont struggle to recover from such a scenario. User is on their own! Isht! References: * Bug report: #284 * Reported by: @dcparga

GochoMugo · 2017-02-10T10:01:16Z

Just pushed a fix for this in commit 130f6940ceb9972a7b0ac0636ac16e7e53984a46 (see how to reproduce the bug, and how we have fixed it!). Please try it out and let us know of the results.

lokhmakov · 2017-02-10T10:13:23Z

Console repeat this:

{ Error: ETELEGRAM: 409 Conflict: terminated by other long poll or webhook
    at request.then.resp (PROJECT_DIR/node_modules/node-telegram-bot-api/src/telegram.js:181:15)
    at tryCatcher (PROJECT_DIR/node_modules/bluebird/js/release/util.js:16:23)
    at Promise._settlePromiseFromHandler (PROJECT_DIR/node_modules/bluebird/js/release/promise.js:510:31)
    at Promise._settlePromise (PROJECT_DIR/node_modules/bluebird/js/release/promise.js:567:18)
    at Promise._settlePromise0 (PROJECT_DIR/node_modules/bluebird/js/release/promise.js:612:10)
    at Promise._settlePromises (PROJECT_DIR/node_modules/bluebird/js/release/promise.js:691:18)
    at Async._drainQueue (PROJECT_DIR/node_modules/bluebird/js/release/async.js:133:16)
    at Async._drainQueues (PROJECT_DIR/node_modules/bluebird/js/release/async.js:143:10)
    at Immediate.Async.drainQueues (PROJECT_DIR/node_modules/bluebird/js/release/async.js:17:14)
    at runCallback (timers.js:651:20)
    at tryOnImmediate (timers.js:624:5)
    at processImmediate [as _immediateCallback] (timers.js:596:5)
  code: 'ETELEGRAM',
  response: 
   IncomingMessage {
     _readableState: 
      ReadableState {
        objectMode: false,
        highWaterMark: 16384,
        buffer: [Object],
        length: 0,
        pipes: null,
        pipesCount: 0,
        flowing: true,
        ended: true,
...

GochoMugo · 2017-02-10T10:15:47Z

Do you have other instances of your bot running?

lokhmakov · 2017-02-10T10:23:02Z

Created new bot. All works fine. 10x

@GochoMugo

Added: 1. Add constructor options: * (#243) `options.polling.params` (by @GochoMugo, requested-by @sidelux) 1. Add methods: * (#74) *TelegramBot#removeReplyListener()* (by @githugger) 1. (#283) Add proper error handling (by @GochoMugo) 1. (#272) Add health-check endpoint (by @mironov) * `options.webHook.healthEndpoint` 1. (#152) Add test for TelegramBot#sendDocument() using 'fileOpts' param (by @evolun) 1. Document `options.webHook.host` (by @GochoMugo) 1. (#264) Add Bot API version to README (by @kamikazechaser) 1. Add examples: - (#271) WebHook on Heroku (by @TheBeastOfCaerbannog) - (#274) WebHook on Zeit Now (by @ferrari) Changed: 1. (#147) Use *String#indexOf()*, instead of *RegExp#test()*, to find token in webhook request (by @AVVS) Fixed: * Fix bug: - (#275, #280) fix es6 syntax error on Node.js v4.x (by @CrazyAbdul) - (#276) promise.warning from `request-promise` (by @GochoMugo, reported-by @preco21) - (#281) fix handling error during polling (by @GochoMugo, reported-by @dimawebmaker) - (#284) fix error during deletion of already-set webhook, during polling (by @GochoMugo, reported-by @dcparga) 1. Fix links in documentation (by @Ni2c2k)

GochoMugo · 2017-02-11T13:07:08Z

Fixed in v0.27.0.

Thanks @dcparga, @lokhmakov and @mjanssen for your time and effort in fixing this bug.

@dcparga

Bug: During polling, deleting the already-set webhook, caused the `TelegramBotPolling#_getUpdates()` return an unexpected value. We expect the method to return an array (in the `.then()` clause). However, deleting the webhook returns its value, which is an object, from the method `_getUpdates()`. Fix: Simply retry the polling request and return the promise. Notes: Should we use recursion? I do not think so. Why? The chances of getting the error (having a webhook set) AGAIN is quite rare. And if it happens, there must be some problem with different instances invoking polling and webhook simultaneously. In that case, we wont struggle to recover from such a scenario. User is on their own! Isht! References: * Bug report: yagop/node-telegram-bot-api#284 * Reported by: @dcparga

@dcparga

Bug: During polling, deleting the already-set webhook, caused the `TelegramBotPolling#_getUpdates()` return an unexpected value. We expect the method to return an array (in the `.then()` clause). However, deleting the webhook returns its value, which is an object, from the method `_getUpdates()`. Fix: Simply retry the polling request and return the promise. Notes: Should we use recursion? I do not think so. Why? The chances of getting the error (having a webhook set) AGAIN is quite rare. And if it happens, there must be some problem with different instances invoking polling and webhook simultaneously. In that case, we wont struggle to recover from such a scenario. User is on their own! Isht! References: * Bug report: yagop/node-telegram-bot-api#284 * Reported by: @dcparga

GochoMugo added the investigate label Feb 9, 2017

GochoMugo added bug and removed investigate labels Feb 10, 2017

GochoMugo added the close-on-next-release label Feb 10, 2017

GochoMugo closed this as completed Feb 11, 2017

GochoMugo removed the close-on-next-release label Feb 11, 2017

Provide feedback

Saved searches

Use saved searches to filter your results more quickly

updates.ForEach is not a function #284

updates.ForEach is not a function #284

dcparga commented Feb 8, 2017

GochoMugo commented Feb 9, 2017

dcparga commented Feb 9, 2017

GochoMugo commented Feb 9, 2017

dcparga commented Feb 9, 2017

lokhmakov commented Feb 10, 2017 •

edited

Loading

lokhmakov commented Feb 10, 2017

mjanssen commented Feb 10, 2017

lokhmakov commented Feb 10, 2017

mjanssen commented Feb 10, 2017

dcparga commented Feb 10, 2017

lokhmakov commented Feb 10, 2017

lokhmakov commented Feb 10, 2017

lokhmakov commented Feb 10, 2017 •

edited

Loading

GochoMugo commented Feb 10, 2017

GochoMugo commented Feb 10, 2017

lokhmakov commented Feb 10, 2017

GochoMugo commented Feb 10, 2017

lokhmakov commented Feb 10, 2017

GochoMugo commented Feb 11, 2017

updates.ForEach is not a function #284

updates.ForEach is not a function #284

Comments

dcparga commented Feb 8, 2017

Expected Behavior

Actual Behavior

GochoMugo commented Feb 9, 2017

dcparga commented Feb 9, 2017

GochoMugo commented Feb 9, 2017

dcparga commented Feb 9, 2017

lokhmakov commented Feb 10, 2017 • edited Loading

lokhmakov commented Feb 10, 2017

mjanssen commented Feb 10, 2017

lokhmakov commented Feb 10, 2017

mjanssen commented Feb 10, 2017

dcparga commented Feb 10, 2017

lokhmakov commented Feb 10, 2017

lokhmakov commented Feb 10, 2017

lokhmakov commented Feb 10, 2017 • edited Loading

GochoMugo commented Feb 10, 2017

GochoMugo commented Feb 10, 2017

lokhmakov commented Feb 10, 2017

GochoMugo commented Feb 10, 2017

lokhmakov commented Feb 10, 2017

GochoMugo commented Feb 11, 2017

lokhmakov commented Feb 10, 2017 •

edited

Loading

lokhmakov commented Feb 10, 2017 •

edited

Loading