| FazBrowse GitHub Viewer | Trending | | Home |
| Tools: [Download Repo ZIP] [Original HTTPS Page] |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Does the missing semicolon pass make lint?
Sorry, something went wrong.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
nope, I have some leftover files with linting errors under bench, and I didn't spot those :(. Updated
Sorry, something went wrong.
|
CITGM: https://ci.nodejs.org/view/Node.js-citgm/job/citgm-smoker/816/ |
Sorry, something went wrong.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
LGTM
Sorry, something went wrong.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
It might be worth doing some assertion on the error received here.
Sorry, something went wrong.
|
CI (without linting errors): https://ci.nodejs.org/job/node-test-pull-request/8232/ |
Sorry, something went wrong.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
If this statement is important you should assert it (set a field on expected on line 177 and assert it's there in line 175).
Sorry, something went wrong.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Some questions.
Sorry, something went wrong.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Personally I like it that if a function is used it's a strong indicator that you need this bound.
Sorry, something went wrong.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
This is just a plain old ES5 function. I tend to say the contrary: I use () => {} as a strong indicator that I need this to stay the same.
Sorry, something went wrong.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Cool.
Sorry, something went wrong.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
"
Sorry, something went wrong.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
IMHO If the cb should stay undocumented don't put it in the signature, extract it from arguments.
My IDE (WebStorm) will intellisense it's presence.
Sorry, something went wrong.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
IMHO we shouldn't use arguments ever unless we really need to.
Sorry, something went wrong.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
this was done in the previous PR, I would prefer to discuss that in another issue, if you want to fire a PR (I would like to get this in ASAP, keeping it only on the regression).
Sorry, something went wrong.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Not feeling strongly about this... Just FYI.
Sorry, something went wrong.
|
P.S. take the @ off my name in the commit comment (or remove the attribution, I don't mind), I get pinged every time you push 😄 |
Sorry, something went wrong.
Fixed a regression that caused the callback passed to destroy() to not be called if the stream was already destroyed. This caused a regression on the ws module in CITGM introduced by nodejs#12925. Fixes: websockets/ws#1118
|
[question] About synchronicity of the call to cb, is there a convention? |
Sorry, something went wrong.
|
@refack there is not. In fact, the comment was just wrong and taken from the other place I copied those examples from. That callback should be called synchronously. |
Sorry, something went wrong.
|
@refack can you confirm this fix does not causes any more regressions, but it fixes the one I introduced? |
Sorry, something went wrong.
Waiting to the CITGM to do it's dance. |
Sorry, something went wrong.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
CITGM clean
Sorry, something went wrong.
Fixed a regression that caused the callback passed to destroy() to not be called if the stream was already destroyed. This caused a regression on the ws module in CITGM introduced by #12925. PR-URL: #13156 Fixes: websockets/ws#1118 Reviewed-By: Colin Ihrig <cjihrig@gmail.com> Reviewed-By: Calvin Metcalf <calvin.metcalf@gmail.com> Reviewed-By: Luigi Pinca <luigipinca@gmail.com> Reviewed-By: Refael Ackermann <refack@gmail.com>
Fixed a regression that caused the callback passed to destroy() to not be called if the stream was already destroyed. This caused a regression on the ws module in CITGM introduced by #12925. PR-URL: #13156 Fixes: websockets/ws#1118 Reviewed-By: Colin Ihrig <cjihrig@gmail.com> Reviewed-By: Calvin Metcalf <calvin.metcalf@gmail.com> Reviewed-By: Luigi Pinca <luigipinca@gmail.com> Reviewed-By: Refael Ackermann <refack@gmail.com>
Fixed a regression that caused the callback passed to destroy() to not be called if the stream was already destroyed. This caused a regression on the ws module in CITGM introduced by #12925. PR-URL: #13156 Fixes: websockets/ws#1118 Reviewed-By: Colin Ihrig <cjihrig@gmail.com> Reviewed-By: Calvin Metcalf <calvin.metcalf@gmail.com> Reviewed-By: Luigi Pinca <luigipinca@gmail.com> Reviewed-By: Refael Ackermann <refack@gmail.com>
| Back | FazBrowse Home | New Git URL |
Fixed a regression that caused the callback passed to destroy()
to not be called if the stream was already destroyed.
This caused a regression on the ws module in CITGM, as discovered
by @refack.
Fixes: websockets/ws#1118
Checklist
Affected core subsystem(s)
stream, net