Uh oh!
There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.
stream: name anonymous functions - #9130
Conversation
There was a problem hiding this comment.
This is to avoid conflict with afterTransform that is called on next line.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
since these are being changed to arrow functions, the self can be switched to this
There was a problem hiding this comment.
oups, you're right, thanks
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Maybe use a camel case name like readableResume ?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I was thinking to change it to _resume, in order to be consistent
There was a problem hiding this comment.
This is to avoid conflict with afterTransform that is called on next line.
I wonder if some of these changes, like |
maasencioh
commented
Oct 17, 2016
@lpinca I just look at those and we both change _stream_wrap.js but in different lines, so it shouldn't conflict, but thank for pointing it out, I didn't review other PRs |
lpinca
commented
Oct 17, 2016
@maasencioh my bad, I thought #9113 was proposing an eslint rule to check if names matched. Ignore me. |
2d4565b to
5a04861Compare@jasnell not all the |
c133999 to
83c7a88CompareThere was a problem hiding this comment.
Maybe call this one resume and rename the local function to resumeReadable ?
targos
commented
Oct 24, 2016
maasencioh
commented
Nov 3, 2016
I'm not sure that the CI failures are related to the changes |
maasencioh
commented
Nov 8, 2016
@jasnell sorry it's anything else needed in this PR? |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Can you please revert all of those to function and name them?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
can you please convert this forEach in a for loop, it can probably save us a couple of ticks.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
this should be named as well, also can you make this function top level, so that the for loop under can be optimized.
mcollina
commented
Jan 26, 2017
@maasencioh would you mind addressing the comments above? We can land this! |
maasencioh
commented
Jan 29, 2017
Hello @mcollina, I thought that this was forgotten, but here I just added the new nits |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
sorry I miss that one, I'll check on the other ones
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Feel free to ignore, but I prefer naming handlers like onEnd, onData, etc.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I wasn't sure which name could be more useful, so this comments are great, thanks
mcollina
left a comment
There was a problem hiding this comment.
A couple of nits and we are good to go.
Can you squash the commits as well?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
can this have a different name? Like _hasInstancePolyfill?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
can we name this writableHasInstance?
maasencioh
commented
Jan 30, 2017
how does it looks now @mcollina? |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
are you sure you can use this here?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
self is not defined anymore in this function.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
can you please revert this to self?
mcollina
commented
Jan 30, 2017
mcollina
commented
Jan 30, 2017
@maasencioh can you swash all the streams commit into one? I think it'd be easier to move around. |
maasencioh
commented
Feb 1, 2017
@mcollina I took my time to make it completely like it should be, I changed everything, but I hope that all it's correct now |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I think the norm is to omit the space after the function name.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
@TimothyGu any tip to run the linter and test only on this files? thanks
maasencioh
commented
Feb 20, 2017
@mcollina what do you think now? any tip to run the linter and test only on this files? thanks |
targos
commented
Feb 21, 2017
@maasencioh run |
mcollina
commented
Feb 24, 2017
LGTM if ci is green. |
maasencioh
commented
Feb 24, 2017
@jasnell@mcollina@targos could you please help me whith this doubt? I renamed a function as proposed like this: Object.defineProperty(Writable,Symbol.hasInstance,{value: functionwritableHasInstance(object){if(realHasInstance.call(this,object))returntrue;returnobject&&object._writableStateinstanceofWritableState;}});But currently this throws a jslint error Should I follow the |
mcollina
commented
Feb 25, 2017
@maasencioh I think you can go ahead and leave that function anonymous. |
TimothyGu
commented
Feb 25, 2017
@maasencioh, alternatively, you can use an ESLint annotation to suppress that error. See this example in |
fhinkel
commented
May 26, 2017
There hasn't been any activity here. I'm closing this. Feel free to reopen (or ping a collaborator) if I closed this in error. |
Checklist
make -j8 testDescription of change
Ref: #8913
For some callbacks I made a change to arrow funtions and for _stream_readable there was a change in
Readable.prototype.wrapthat I would like some opinions because I'm not sure if it's going to work as spected