http: DRY ClientRequest.prototype._deferToConnect #2769
Conversation
Logic for calling the passed in socket method and/or callback was duplicated.
| @@ -504,19 +504,17 @@ ClientRequest.prototype._deferToConnect = function(method, arguments_, cb) { | |||
| // in the future (when a socket gets assigned out of the pool and is | |||
| // eventually writable). | |||
| var self = this; | |||
| var callSocketMethod = function() { | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Can you make this function callSocketMethod()
|
Comments have been addressed. Of course, any more are welcome. |
|
🍇 |
| @@ -504,19 +504,17 @@ ClientRequest.prototype._deferToConnect = function(method, arguments_, cb) { | |||
| // in the future (when a socket gets assigned out of the pool and is | |||
| // eventually writable). | |||
| var self = this; | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
While you're here, self doesn't seem to be necessary. Mind removing it? It can be replaced with, as far as I can tell, a var socket = this.socket. The bottom reference to self can just be used as this.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I converted the code as you suggested (good catch btw), and that caused the error
cannot read property 'writable' of null
if (socket.writable) { // socket used to be self.socket
...This seems to stem from the initial _deferToConnect call, where this.socket is undefined. When the ClientRequest catches the 'socket' event, the socket variable in onSocket() refers to the initial undefined value which was scoped in. As a result, everything blows up when trying to read the writable property of that.
A work around that I found was to have onSocket() accept a sock argument (given by the socket event), and update socket with that parameter. So this piece of code works:
ClientRequest.prototype._deferToConnect = function(method, arguments_, cb) {
// ...
var socket = this.socket;
function callSocketMethod() {
if (method)
socket[method].apply(socket, arguments_);
if (typeof cb === 'function')
cb();
}
var onSocket = function(sock) { // Now accepts the socket from the 'socket' event.
socket = sock || socket; // Update socket reference.
if (socket.writable) {
callSocketMethod();
} else {
socket.once('connect', callSocketMethod);
}
};
if (!socket) {
this.once('socket', onSocket);
} else {
onSocket();
}
};However I'm not completely sure on the repercussions of this. Maybe leaving the existing implementation would be for the better? I'm interested in what you think
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Hmm, you're right, that is something I missed originally. I'd say let's keep the current implementation, as that new one wouldn't really improve the quality of the code. Sorry about the run around!
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Sounds good, then I'll leave this PR as it is. And no need to apologize, we got some documentation and a deeper understanding of the code here 😄
|
Seems like the build failed? Looks like only the |
|
https://ci.nodejs.org/job/node-test-pull-request/302/ those arm errors were fixed yesterday |
|
CI is happy, this LGTM. @cjihrig ? |
|
Yep, LGTM |
|
Bump |
Logic for calling the passed in socket method and/or callback was duplicated. This commit refactors the relevant code to remove the redundancy. PR-URL: #2769 Reviewed-By: Colin Ihrig <[email protected]> Reviewed-By: Brendan Ashworth <[email protected]>
|
Thanks! Landed in 79d2c4e after squashing. |
Logic for calling the passed in socket method and/or callback was duplicated. This commit refactors the relevant code to remove the redundancy. PR-URL: #2769 Reviewed-By: Colin Ihrig <[email protected]> Reviewed-By: Brendan Ashworth <[email protected]>
Came across some repetitive lines when reviewing code.
Logic for calling the passed in socket
methodand/orcbwas duplicated. Extracted these calls into a separate function,callSocketMethod, and invoked this new function in place of the replaced code.