doc: readable.push() supports undefined in non-object mode#18283
doc: readable.push() supports undefined in non-object mode#18283MoonBall wants to merge 1 commit intonodejs:masterfrom
readable.push() supports undefined in non-object mode#18283Conversation
nodejs-github-bot
added
doc
doc/api/stream.md
Outdated
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Perhaps just remove the *Note*: part, it's really not necessary
There was a problem hiding this comment.
because I don't know where it should be placed.
MoonBall
force-pushed
the
doc-add-readable.push-supports-undefined
branch
from
63ec723 to
5ec2d5a
Compare
|
Hm, I personally wonder if we really should support undefined. I liked #18244. If someone pushes |
|
I also think that no support for |
|
@mcollina @mafintosh what do you two think about removing the support? Is there a good reason to support |
doc/api/stream.md
Outdated
There was a problem hiding this comment.
What would mean for the chunk to be interpreted as an empty string of buffer?
Can you add another sentence explaining what is happening?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
@mcollina I added a sentence for readable.push('').
|
@BridgeAR there isn't. However, I do not see why removing that support would improve our API, so why breaking things? |
|
@mcollina the main point for me would be that pushing undefined might be a indicator for having a bug in the code and by prohibiting that it could unveil those bugs. |
|
let's land this and then we can fire the semver-major thing. |
|
@mcollina I would say we either document it or we want to deprecate it. But documenting something that we do not really want does not make a lot of sense to me. |
Removing or deprecating things are semver-major. A doc change can be easily backported. |
|
@mcollina I am aware that it is easy to backport a doc change but for me the question is: do we really want to document this? |
This has been part of streams for a very long time. We can consider it public knowledge and state the fact that this is supported behavior. |
MoonBall
force-pushed
the
doc-add-readable.push-supports-undefined
branch
from
5ec2d5a to
c17c7eb
Compare
|
Landing. |
|
Landed in 8b518ed |
`readable.push()` supports `undefined` in non-object mode, but it was not previously documented. PR-URL: #18283 Reviewed-By: James M Snell <[email protected]> Reviewed-By: Matteo Collina <[email protected]>
`readable.push()` supports `undefined` in non-object mode, but it was not previously documented. PR-URL: nodejs#18283 Reviewed-By: James M Snell <[email protected]> Reviewed-By: Matteo Collina <[email protected]>
`readable.push()` supports `undefined` in non-object mode, but it was not previously documented. PR-URL: #18283 Reviewed-By: James M Snell <[email protected]> Reviewed-By: Matteo Collina <[email protected]>
`readable.push()` supports `undefined` in non-object mode, but it was not previously documented. PR-URL: nodejs#18283 Reviewed-By: James M Snell <[email protected]> Reviewed-By: Matteo Collina <[email protected]>
`readable.push()` supports `undefined` in non-object mode, but it was not previously documented. PR-URL: nodejs#18283 Reviewed-By: James M Snell <[email protected]> Reviewed-By: Matteo Collina <[email protected]>
`readable.push()` supports `undefined` in non-object mode, but it was not previously documented. Backport-PR-URL: #22380 PR-URL: #18283 Reviewed-By: James M Snell <[email protected]> Reviewed-By: Matteo Collina <[email protected]>
5 participants
I found that the readable stream that isn't in object mode supports
undefinedlong ago, and it's original idea is to express EOF. Now it is just treated as a empty string or buffer. But the doc and code aren't clear for it although it is not important.Checklist
make -j4 test(UNIX), orvcbuild test(Windows) passesAffected core subsystem(s)
doc, stream