-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 29.8k
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
repl: event ordering: delay 'close' until 'flushHistory' #3435
Conversation
|
||
return; | ||
} | ||
Interface.prototype.close.call(this); |
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.
maybe this should be called in nextTick
?
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.
I would think so
LGTM if CI is happy |
so for failures we have:
I don't think any of these are related to the proposed changes. Still LGTM |
cc @nodejs/tsc |
Code change LGTM. Just squash the commits. |
1f69c51
to
5539b5e
Compare
Emitting 'close' before the history has flushed is somewhat incorrect and rather confusing. This also makes the 'close' event always asynchronous for consistency. Refs: nodejs#2356 PR-URL: nodejs#3435 Reviewed By: Evan Lucas <[email protected]> Reviewed-By: Trevor Norris <[email protected]>
5539b5e
to
ecab7a6
Compare
Emitting 'close' before the history has flushed is somewhat incorrect and rather confusing. This also makes the 'close' event always asynchronous for consistency. Refs: #2356 PR-URL: #3435 Reviewed By: Evan Lucas <[email protected]> Reviewed-By: Trevor Norris <[email protected]>
Emitting close before the history has flushed is somewhat incorrect and
rather confusing.
Fixes an issue related to #2356
Separate PR since I'm going to try to make #2356 work without it, but would already like review here.