-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 30k
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
domain: fix error emit handling #17588
Conversation
CI: https://ci.nodejs.org/job/node-test-pull-request/12027/ Edit: Both appear to be green all around. |
@apapirovski Thanks. Could you elaborate on what the bugs are? |
@AndreasMadsen see the added test case which fails with the old implementation. Basically, |
@apapirovski Could you describe that in the commit message? |
Fix an issue where error is never emitted on the original EventEmitter in situations where a listener for error does exist. Refactor to eliminate unnecessary try/catch/finally block.
e1037dd
to
d46e020
Compare
@AndreasMadsen Done. |
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.
This is a good start. But let's try to stay closer to the original implementation.
lib/domain.js
Outdated
domain.emit('error', args[1]); | ||
return false; | ||
} | ||
const doError = type === 'error' && |
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.
This doError
is opposite of the doError
in the old events.js
implementation. Logically it is not wrong but it makes it hard to compare the implementations.
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.
That seems more like a naming issue. Maybe just name it shouldEmitError
instead of doError
?
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'm fine with a renaming. But you should make it clear if the emit is on the original EventEmitter
or the domain
instance.
lib/domain.js
Outdated
} | ||
|
||
if (type === 'error') { | ||
const er = args.length > 1 && args[1] ? |
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.
args[1] || new errors.Error('ERR_UNHANDLED_ERROR')
should be enough. But I think it would be better to stay grammatically closer to the old implementation.
Something like:
er = args[1]
if (!er) {
const errors = lazyErrors();
er = new errors.Error('ERR_UNHANDLED_ERROR');
}
if (typeof er === 'object' && er !== null) {
er.domainEmitter = this;
er.domain = domain;
er.domainThrown = false;
}
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.
That triggers a slow path in V8. We need the if
check or a ternary. This version does the same in less lines and we don't need lazyErrors
, which is the main reason we didn't just use a ternary before.
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.
LGTM but it would be nice if my comment would be addressed (even though that code was not touched in this PR).
lib/domain.js
Outdated
if (type === 'error') { | ||
const er = args.length > 1 && args[1] ? | ||
args[1] : new errors.Error('ERR_UNHANDLED_ERROR'); | ||
|
||
if (typeof er === 'object' && er !== null) { |
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.
er
can not be null
anymore. It is either truthy and in that case it is not null or it is an error and in that case it is also not null. I wonder if the object check is actually necessary either. Since er
is always a truthy value, assigning properties to it will never fail (even though it would of course be weird to try to add properties to e.g. a number, but trying would not hurt either and the average case would be faster).
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.
@BridgeAR Great job noticing that! Seems like we've had that pointless check in this code for a while. Guessing it was useful at some point but clearly left over and unnecessary now.
The only reason I can think of leaving the object check is in case someone is testing for those properties and assuming that they're dealing with an object afterwards... ? But that seems obscure enough that it shouldn't be a real issue.
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.
That could be solved with a comment as well, right?
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 just mean for the purposes of third-party code... but that seems like a pretty obscure thing to me. We can run CitGM to double-check.
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.
Although, something to think about: typeof
isn't very expensive in V8 these days and setting 3 props on numbers or strings is, I think, a lot more expensive. So from a perf perspective, it might be better to keep this check.
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 am not sure what you mean that third-party code relies on that? Trying to set a property on a primitive (not function) is a noop. The outcome will be the same as it is right now.
About the performance implications - I am aware that a typeof is cheap but do we want to optimize for the average case or for obscure cases? Because passing in a non object as error sounds really weird to me...
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.
Does it? I've definitely seen people use strings. It's tricky... we've allowed it till now so we're kind of stuck with supporting it. Anyway, if we're optimizing then it should be done in another PR. I don't think domain
related code is that performance sensitive anyway... there are much worse offenders.
I'll remove the null
check tho.
Landed in 04ae486 |
Fix an issue where error is never emitted on the original EventEmitter in situations where a listener for error does exist. Refactor to eliminate unnecessary try/catch/finally block. PR-URL: #17588 Refs: #17403 Reviewed-By: Ruben Bridgewater <ruben@bridgewater.de> Reviewed-By: James M Snell <jasnell@gmail.com>
I'm setting the dont-land label for 9.x as #17403 didn't land. Please feel free to backport |
Fix an issue where error is never emitted on the original EventEmitter in situations where a listener for error does exist. Refactor to eliminate unnecessary try/catch/finally block. PR-URL: nodejs#17588 Refs: nodejs#17403 Reviewed-By: Ruben Bridgewater <ruben@bridgewater.de> Reviewed-By: James M Snell <jasnell@gmail.com>
Fix an issue where error is never emitted on the original EventEmitter in situations where a listener for error does exist. Refactor to eliminate unnecessary try/catch/finally block. Backport-PR-URL: #18487 PR-URL: #17588 Refs: #17403 Reviewed-By: Ruben Bridgewater <ruben@bridgewater.de> Reviewed-By: James M Snell <jasnell@gmail.com>
There are a few errors in the logic of the new domain-specific
emit
and a bit too much fanciness with the falling through try-catch logic. Fixed it all up and created a regression test.Refs: #17403
Checklist
make -j4 test
(UNIX), orvcbuild test
(Windows) passesAffected core subsystem(s)
domain, events, test