always handle async sendCommand rejections #703
Merged
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
brendankenny
changed the title
paulirish
approved these changes
Sep 26, 2016
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Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.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.
I was looking at the promise+event and promise+timeout async patterns we use in a few places with
driver.sendCommand()and noticed that we were dropping possible promise rejections in several places (and even leaving promise chains behind completely a couple of times).In practice, the debugger interface serializes our commands for us, so the dropped promise chains likely aren't a problem, and I have yet to see a failure on any domain enabling (though I suppose it might be hard to recognize on master when it does happen without an unhandled rejection warning), but better to have these locked down, especially since they serve as the copy/paste examples for how to use the protocol in audits, like in #691.