When simulating close, ensure res emits close.#139
Merged
devinivy merged 1 commit intohapijs:masterfrom Jan 23, 2021
Merged
Conversation
Nargonath
approved these changes
Jan 22, 2021
kanongil
approved these changes
Jan 22, 2021
This was referenced Jan 23, 2021
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
3 participants
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Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.Suggestions cannot be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.
In followup to #138 I've implemented the proposed fix. By looking at #138 you can see that the changes are nearly identical, but here we only handle the case of simulating a close rather than ensuring that res always emits
'close'any time req emits'close'.It's worth mentioning I also experimented with a separate approach of using the socket to propagate these events (as is done internally to node). My hope was that shot would then inherit a nice subset of node behaviors, and in turn be more accurate to a real/live http server. It was interesting and there were some positive results, but it was more complex and wasn't the right approach to address this particular issue.
Refs: hapijs/hapi#4208
I tested these changes with hapi against node v15.5.1, v14.15.4, and v12.19.1.