Re: [whatwg/streams] Does pipeTo() wait for writes to complete even when there are no writes? (#945)

https://github.com/web-platform-tests/wpt/pull/12296 demonstrates one kind of timing sensitivity we have. Adding a Promise.resolve() to permit the promise returned by start() to settle changes the rejection returned by pipeTo(). I'm pretty sure that this behaviour is mandated by the standard.

I think probably implementations should be permitted to have either behavior in the "erroring" case.

Or maybe we want to force the initial check to always be asynchronous? That would make all currently compliant implementations non-conformant, which is bad. Also it's mildly inefficient.

> Optionally, wait an additional user-agent determined amount of time. NOTE: this is intended to help avoid tightly specifying the number of microtasks in zero-chunk or immediately-errored cases.

I don't want to let them wait an arbitrary time. If it sometimes took 3 seconds for pipeTo() to do anything that would be very hard to work with. I want to say something like "Optionally, execute some pending tasks" 

-- 
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/whatwg/streams/issues/945#issuecomment-410250157