Re: [whatwg/streams] Allow aborting an ongoing pipe operation using AbortSignals (#744)

domenic commented on this pull request.



> @@ -791,6 +800,16 @@ option. If <code><a for="underlying source">type</a></code> is set to <code>unde
          1. If _preventCancel_ is *false*, <a href="#rs-pipeTo-shutdown-with-action">shutdown with an action</a> of !
             ReadableStreamCancel(*this*, _destClosed_) and with _destClosed_.
          1. Otherwise, <a href="#rs-pipeTo-shutdown">shutdown</a> with _destClosed_.
+     * <strong>Abort signals must stop activity:</strong> if _signal_ is not *undefined*, the following algorithm
+       _abortAlgorithm_ must be <a for="AbortSignal">added</a> to _signal_:
+         1. Let _error_ be a new "`<a idl>AbortError</a>`" `<a idl>DOMException</a>`.
+         1. Let _actions_ be an empty <a>ordered set</a>.
+         1. If _preventAbort_ is *false*, <a for="set">append</a> the action of performing !
+            WritableStreamAbort(_dest_, _error_) to _actions_.
+         1. If _preventCancel_ is *false*, <a for="set">append</a> the action of performing !
+            ReadableStreamCancel(*this*, _error_) to _actions_.
+         1. <a href="#rs-pipeTo-shutdown-with-action">Shutdown with an action</a> consisting of <a>waiting for all</a>

Right. Should we consider this blocked on fixing "waiting for all", or is it OK to continue using it in a "do what I mean, not what I say" fashion?

-- 
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/744#discussion_r215997129