Suggestion to simplify prevention of dangling Promise on destroy #286
Conversation
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
Gudahtt
force-pushed
the
fix/internal-listeners-suggestion
branch
from
331159a
to
f3fe246
Compare
The `fix/internal-listeners` branch has a number of changes intended to ensure we don't have a dangling unresolved Promise when the block tracker is destroyed. This solution involved adding an additional listener to capture errors, and it involved not removing internal listeners when `destroy` is called. This required changes to some logging in `_updateAndQueue` as well. This commit is an alternative solution that avoids the use of internal listeners, thus avoiding much of the complexity in the previous solution. Instead an internal deferred Promise is used. This also might be slightly more efficient when `getLatestBlock` is called repeatedly, as we can reuse the same listener rather than creating a new one each time.
Gudahtt
force-pushed
the
fix/internal-listeners-suggestion
branch
from
f3fe246
to
3435c0a
Compare
mcmire
reviewed
Nov 22, 2024
| @@ -118,37 +117,23 @@ export class PollingBlockTracker | |||
| // return if available | |||
| if (this._currentBlock) { | |||
| return this._currentBlock; | |||
| } else if (this.#pendingLatestBlock) { | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Ah, good catch here. I was thinking of also using a deferred promise and keeping it in a private field, but it seemed that calling getLatestBlock multiple times without waiting would overwrite that field. This is a good solution.
mikesposito
reviewed
Nov 22, 2024
| }); | ||
| // return newly set current block | ||
| return latestBlock; | ||
| this.#pendingLatestBlock = { promise, reject }; |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I'm wondering, if we are making this promise available to the rest of the class, would it make sense to also resolve it through this class variable and get rid of the internal listener altogether?
This comment was marked as resolved.
This comment was marked as resolved.
Sorry, something went wrong.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
True, yeah maybe so, good idea
mcmire
reviewed
Nov 22, 2024
Gudahtt
commented
Nov 22, 2024
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
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.
The
fix/internal-listenersbranch has a number of changes intended to ensure we don't have a dangling unresolved Promise when the block tracker is destroyed. This solution involved adding an additional listener to capture errors, and it involved not removing internal listeners whendestroyis called. This required changes to some logging in_updateAndQueueas well.This commit is an alternative solution that avoids the use of internal listeners, thus avoiding much of the complexity in the previous solution. Instead an internal deferred Promise is used. This also might be slightly more efficient when
getLatestBlockis called repeatedly, as we can reuse the same listener rather than creating a new one each time.