Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
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
add @@asyncIterator to ReadableStream #954
add @@asyncIterator to ReadableStream #954
Changes from 3 commits
6c96626
7e7aaa1
b682fdc
d08405f
d84893a
8f37db0
291da25
File filter
Filter by extension
Conversations
Jump to
There are no files selected for viewing
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
This should return a rejected promise, rather than throw an exception. From this comment by @domenic:
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Same as above, this should return a rejected promise.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
These two steps are in both branches of the if statement and so should be moved up above it.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
This should also be changed in the reference implementation.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
This should reject if
reader.[[ownerReadableStream]]
isundefined
. Otherwise, we may fail an assert inReadableStreamReaderGenericRelease
.We should probably just move step 3a to before step 3.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
I think it's impossible for it to be
undefined
. User code would have to get access to [[reader]] to callreleaseLock()
, and it can't. So this should be an assert.There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
It's not impossible for it to be
undefined
, but you really have to go out of your way to break it:There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
What happens when there are pending read requests? See previous discussion.
Normally,
ReadableStreamDefaultReader.releaseLock()
checks whetherthis.[[readRequests]]
is empty. However, this implementation usesReadableStreamReaderGenericRelease
directly without going through the same checks asreleaseLock
.There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
So now if
preventCancel
is falsereturn()
will give a promise for{ value: promise for undefined, done: true }
. Whereas if it is true,return()
will give a promise for{ value: value, done: true }
. It should give the latter in both cases.