Skip to content

fix: handle a potential uncaughtException #113

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.

Sign up for GitHub

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

Merged
shellscape merged 1 commit into from
Feb 20, 2019
Merged

fix: handle a potential uncaughtException #113

Changes from all commits
Commits
Show all changes
1 commit
Select commit
File filter

Filter by extension

Filter by extension
Conversations
Failed to load comments.
Loading
Jump to
Jump to file
Failed to load files.
Loading
Diff view
Diff view
3 changes: 3 additions & 0 deletions lib/routes.js
View file
Open in desktop
Original file line number Diff line number Diff line change
Expand Up @@ -84,6 +84,9 @@ const setupRoutes = function setupRoutes() {
};

socket.progress = (data) => {
if (socket.readyState !== 1) {
Copy link
Owner

@shellscape shellscape Feb 18, 2019

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

I'm good with the change. But it begs the question: should we wrap socket.send and inject that same logical check so all attempts to socket.send are covered?

Copy link
Contributor Author

@niieani niieani Feb 19, 2019

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

That sounds reasonable, it should prevent any other such problems. I'll look into it.

return;
}
socket.send(prep({ action: 'progress', data }));
};

Expand Down