fix(webSocket): manage serializer throwing exceptions #7114
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
voliva
changed the title
voliva
changed the title
benlesh
reviewed
Dec 3, 2022
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I don't think we can accept this PR as-is. There's clearly a bug, but we need to discuss what the correct behavior is.
In general, the WebSocketSubject should emit the error... but also it seems like we should close the socket with the proper code when that happens.
| if (socket!.readyState === 1) { | ||
| try { | ||
| const { serializer } = this._config; | ||
| socket!.send(serializer!(x!)); | ||
| } catch (e) { | ||
| this.destination!.error(e); |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I'd say the actual bug was here. We clearly have a handle to the wrong thing. 🤔
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Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.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.
Related issue (if exists):
Fixes #7111
Description:
I see the behaviour of the serializer was not really specified, I added a couple of tests to cover it.
This is the solution that's less disruptive with the previous behaviour:
{ code, reason }it won't be effected by this change: The socket will be closed with those parameters..next(caller.I think all of this points are open for discussion though. A couple of questions:
.next(, or should it be thrown on the observer? I think throwing them on.next(makes more sense, because it lets the producer know there was an exception. The observer expects errors to come only from the websocket.