Add node v10 to Travis matrix and clean up some tests#1634
Merged
brianc merged 3 commits intobrianc:masterfrom May 4, 2018
Merged
Add node v10 to Travis matrix and clean up some tests#1634brianc merged 3 commits intobrianc:masterfrom
brianc merged 3 commits intobrianc:masterfrom
Conversation
Owner
|
Ah thanks! I'll be working on node-posgres most of the day tomorrow doing some overdue housekeeping & stuff so I'll merge this then! |
charmander
approved these changes
May 4, 2018
Owner
|
Yeah destroy looks good. Thanks for the PR! |
This file contains hidden or 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
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Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.Suggestions cannot be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.
Three commits in this PR:
socket.destroy()rather thansocket.end()(which fixes Travis)new Buffer(...)to useBuffer.from(...).I'm not sure what exactly changed in node v10 to require updating the test from
socket.end()tosocket.destroy()but suspect it's something internal to waiting for the socket to gracefully close. Haven't been able to find anything online regarding it either though that may be because v10 is so new.I'm going to take a look if applying #1608 would correct this as well. Either way I think using
destroy(...)is probably a good idea as that's what the test is simulated right? (i.e. network partition immediately killing the connection mid flight)