Skip to content
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

Open
wants to merge 17 commits into
base: master
Choose a base branch
from

Conversation

Icehunter
Copy link

@Icehunter Icehunter commented Mar 2, 2020

updated PR with rebase from express/compress:master to handle #128

@dougwilson
Copy link
Contributor

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?

@Icehunter
Copy link
Author

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.

@Icehunter
Copy link
Author

@dougwilson I found all the comments I think needed to be fixed, except 2 perhaps that I'll work on tonight.

  1. the on('data') callback which I think doesn't need a data check; per the noop it's just a way to prevent hangs
  2. the comments from @sogaani regarding the response code. I'll look at that as well.

@Icehunter
Copy link
Author

@dougwilson Is there anything more you see for this PR to have?
@sogaani with regards to your comment on the error status code; it seems to be a big edge case. I work on a very large API and haven't encountered this issue before.

@dougwilson
Copy link
Contributor

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?

@Icehunter
Copy link
Author

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.

@dougwilson dougwilson added the pr label Jul 10, 2020
@valoricDe
Copy link

Seems like this one got stuck right?

Copy link

@lamweili lamweili left a 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.

  1. Switching from an undocumented API to a public API.
    This is definitely preferred. Current tests should suffice as there are no logical changes.
  2. 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.

test/compression.js Show resolved Hide resolved
test/compression.js Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
test/compression.js Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
test/compression.js Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
test/compression.js Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
test/compression.js Show resolved Hide resolved
test/compression.js Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
test/compression.js Show resolved Hide resolved
@lamweili
Copy link

@Icehunter, you might want to correct the indentations at line 740-744 and line 747-753.
I didn't include them previously so that 38fe9fd is surgical.

function closeHttp2 (client, server, callback) {
if (typeof client.shutdown === 'function') {
// this is the node v8.x way of closing the connections
client.shutdown({}, function () {
server.close(function () {
callback()
})
})
} else {
// this is the node v9.x onwards way of closing the connections
client.close(function () {
// force existing connections to time out after 1ms.
// this is done to force the server to close in some cases where it wouldn't do it otherwise.
server.close(function () {
callback()
})
})
}
}

@lamweili
Copy link

@Icehunter, for the clarity that #129 is not in this PR, the description should change:

updated PR with rebase from express/compress:master to handle #128 and #129

@Icehunter Icehunter force-pushed the bugfix/use_writeHead_instead_of_implicitHeader branch from 38fe9fd to d85e6e8 Compare July 30, 2022 19:33
@Icehunter
Copy link
Author

@Icehunter, for the clarity that #129 is not in this PR, the description should change:

updated PR with rebase from express/compress:master to handle #128 and #129

Updated and rebased again :)

@lamweili lamweili force-pushed the bugfix/use_writeHead_instead_of_implicitHeader branch from 0dafcad to b908af0 Compare August 2, 2022 07:36
@lamweili lamweili force-pushed the bugfix/use_writeHead_instead_of_implicitHeader branch from 4d77342 to b908af0 Compare August 2, 2022 08:37
@lamweili lamweili force-pushed the bugfix/use_writeHead_instead_of_implicitHeader branch from b908af0 to 4c1d27b Compare August 2, 2022 09:49
@lamweili
Copy link

lamweili commented Aug 4, 2022

@dougwilson When you are free, can you review this PR?
Fixes #122 and supersedes #128.
Many thanks! 🤗

I didn't have access in the forked repository to run the GH actions. So I forked the PR.
I ran the GH actions on my own repository and here is the result for the latest commit (4c1d27b):
https://github.com/lamweili/compression/actions

@lamweili
Copy link

lamweili commented Oct 7, 2022

@dougwilson, have you got the time to take a look at this PR?

@bjohansebas bjohansebas requested review from UlisesGascon and a team November 4, 2024 00:16
@bjohansebas bjohansebas self-assigned this Nov 4, 2024
@bjohansebas bjohansebas added enhancement and removed pr labels Nov 4, 2024
Copy link

@lamweili lamweili left a 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)
😮‍💨

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

6 participants