Uh oh!
There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.
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Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.Suggestions cannot be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.
While you're here,
selfdoesn't seem to be necessary. Mind removing it? It can be replaced with, as far as I can tell, avar socket = this.socket. The bottom reference toselfcan just be used asthis.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 converted the code as you suggested (good catch btw), and that caused the error
This seems to stem from the initial
_deferToConnectcall, wherethis.socketisundefined. When the ClientRequest catches the 'socket' event, thesocketvariable inonSocket()refers to the initialundefinedvalue which was scoped in. As a result, everything blows up when trying to read thewritableproperty of that.A work around that I found was to have
onSocket()accept asockargument (given by thesocketevent), and updatesocketwith that parameter. So this piece of code works: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.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
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.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
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 😄