Skip to content
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

Editorial: Export fetch controller/serialized abort reason #1736

Merged
merged 1 commit into from
Mar 25, 2024

Conversation

mkruisselbrink
Copy link
Collaborator

@mkruisselbrink mkruisselbrink commented Feb 12, 2024

This is referenced 1 by the Service Worker spec, so should either be exported or something else to achieve the same thing would need to exist (forwarding the "abort reason" from a fetch controller to an AbortController; note that the service worker algorithm is currently extra confusing because it uses the same variable name for both "controller" objects).


Preview | Diff

This is referenced [1] by the Service Worker spec, so should either be exported or something else to achieve the same thing would need to exist (forwarding the "abort reason" from a fetch controller to an AbortController; note that the service worker algorithm is currently extra confusing because it uses the same variable name for two different objects).

[1]: https://w3c.github.io/ServiceWorker/#clients-openwindow:~:text=If%20controller%E2%80%99s%20serialized%20abort%20reason%20is%20non%2Dnull
@annevk
Copy link
Member

annevk commented Feb 13, 2024

@noamr @shaseley could you both look at this perhaps?

@shaseley
Copy link

Exporting that looks reasonable. (Aside: it looks like "deserialize a serialized abort reason" could be used there too for consistency w/ fetch? It's already used a bit earlier in handle fetch.)

note that the service worker algorithm is currently extra confusing because it uses the same variable name for both "controller" objects).

Ugh I think I added that second one :(. Happy to fix that if you're already doing so.

@annevk annevk merged commit 76102d5 into main Mar 25, 2024
2 checks passed
@annevk annevk deleted the mkruisselbrink-patch-1 branch March 25, 2024 14:56
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

4 participants