-
-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 242
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
Bugfix/use write head instead of implicit header #170
base: master
Are you sure you want to change the base?
Bugfix/use write head instead of implicit header #170
Conversation
Just wanted to note on here it looks like just a rebase, without addressing the review comments yet. I presume that will come in follow up commits? |
Yes, working on that now. |
@dougwilson I found all the comments I think needed to be fixed, except 2 perhaps that I'll work on tonight.
|
@dougwilson Is there anything more you see for this PR to have? |
I was under the impression you were going to make changes in regards to the two bullet points above, which is what I'm waiting on. I never saw any additional comments after that message. Are you still working on them? |
Eh! Sorry; I did leave the on('data') callback as is in the test, but I removed all the logs and I believe covered everything you had commented on in the previous test. For the second bullet point I quite literally have no clue off the top of my head how to even cover that in an edge case test. |
Seems like this one got stuck right? |
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.
Hi @Icehunter and @dougwilson,
IMHO, there are two issues covered by this PR.
- Switching from an undocumented API to a public API.
This is definitely preferred. Current tests should suffice as there are no logical changes. - Supporting http2 as a by-product.
Additional tests required to prove support on http2.
I addressed the on('data') callback
as mentioned in #128 (comment) and #170 (comment) with the following suggestions.
It now asserts that the data is correct.
Go to the Files tab and Add suggestion to batch
so that it becomes a singular commit.
You might also want to correct the indentations within the function closeHttp2
at line 733.
I believe with this, all outstanding review comments in #128 are addressed and this PR should be ready and supersede #128.
@Icehunter, you might want to correct the indentations at line 740-744 and line 747-753. compression/test/compression.js Lines 737 to 756 in 38fe9fd
|
@Icehunter, for the clarity that #129 is not in this PR, the description should change:
|
The change just removes the usage of undocumented http API and instead uses the proper writeHead method
… in node v10.4 onwards
Co-authored-by: Lam Wei Li <[email protected]>
38fe9fd
to
d85e6e8
Compare
Updated and rebased again :) |
0dafcad
to
b908af0
Compare
4d77342
to
b908af0
Compare
b908af0
to
4c1d27b
Compare
@dougwilson When you are free, can you review this PR? I didn't have access in the forked repository to run the GH actions. So I forked the PR. |
@dougwilson, have you got the time to take a look at this PR? |
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.
LGTM
(can't approve cause I don't have explicit access to this repository)
😮💨
updated PR with rebase from express/compress:master to handle #128