-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 29.6k
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
events: allow monitoring error events #30932
Closed
Closed
Changes from all commits
Commits
Show all changes
3 commits
Select commit
Hold shift + click to select a range
File filter
Filter by extension
Conversations
Failed to load comments.
Loading
Jump to
Jump to file
Failed to load files.
Loading
Diff view
Diff view
There are no files selected for viewing
This file contains 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
This file contains 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
This file contains 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
Original file line number | Diff line number | Diff line change |
---|---|---|
@@ -0,0 +1,32 @@ | ||
'use strict'; | ||
const common = require('../common'); | ||
const assert = require('assert'); | ||
const EventEmitter = require('events'); | ||
|
||
const EE = new EventEmitter(); | ||
const theErr = new Error('MyError'); | ||
|
||
EE.on( | ||
EventEmitter.errorMonitor, | ||
common.mustCall(function onErrorMonitor(e) { | ||
assert.strictEqual(e, theErr); | ||
}, 3) | ||
); | ||
|
||
// Verify with no error listener | ||
common.expectsError( | ||
() => EE.emit('error', theErr), theErr | ||
); | ||
|
||
// Verify with error listener | ||
EE.once('error', common.mustCall((e) => assert.strictEqual(e, theErr))); | ||
EE.emit('error', theErr); | ||
|
||
|
||
// Verify it works with once | ||
process.nextTick(() => EE.emit('error', theErr)); | ||
assert.rejects(EventEmitter.once(EE, 'notTriggered'), theErr); | ||
|
||
// Only error events trigger error monitor | ||
EE.on('aEvent', common.mustCall()); | ||
EE.emit('aEvent'); |
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.
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.
by adding an enumerable but nonwritable field, this is a potential breaking change - see googleapis/nodejs-spanner#830 (comment).
In the future, we may want to consider enumerable fields as nonmajor only when they're normal data properties.
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.
Should we change this to a normal property? I used non writable simply because a write to this is usually a bug. I haven't seen any reasonable usecase to change this value but kept it configurable to allow any sort of hack if really needed.
In principle also a normal property added could be seen a breaking if some user added a property with the same name already before in it's code.
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.
Making it non-enumerable, or making it an accessor instead of a data property, would work as well.