- From: Takeshi Yoshino <notifications@github.com>
- Date: Fri, 10 Mar 2017 07:13:05 -0800
- To: whatwg/streams <streams@noreply.github.com>
- Cc: Subscribed <subscribed@noreply.github.com>
- Message-ID: <whatwg/streams/pull/672/c285693724@github.com>
Thanks for review, domenic and ricea. Thanks for the tweaking. I've squashed and rebased the commits. The last commit before that is f462f023d377fe52ecaa2ae787ac1aca2ceede38. > It seems like the three first bullets in #672 (comment) should each get a test. Yes. Sorry but I'm travelling tomorrow and doesn't have enough time to address this. ricea kindly said he'll follow up this. > Also, if this is really solving #632, then shouldn't the test changes in We don't follow the expectation in the `Closing but then immediately aborting a WritableStream results in a successful close and a fulfilled abort()` test. The situation described in the note has been still fixed, I think. `writer.close()` may get aborted by `writer.abort()` if `writer.close()` is still queued, but in that case, `sink.close()` is not yet called and only `sink.abort()` gets called. So, the sink doesn't get both. The `Closing a WritableStream and aborting it while it is in the process of closing results in a successful close and fulfilled abort()` test is worth being merged, I think. The improvement on `underlying abort() should not be called until underlying write() completes` test and following ones is just worth being merged. I or @ricea should do these, yes! -- 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/pull/672#issuecomment-285693724
Received on Friday, 10 March 2017 15:13:50 UTC