Uh oh!
There was an error while loading.Please reload this page.
- Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork9.7k
[Messenger] ease testing and allow forking the middleware stack#31204
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 ourterms of service andprivacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub?Sign in to your account
Uh oh!
There was an error while loading.Please reload this page.
Conversation
b38a927 to3bdf4b0Compare
weaverryan left a comment
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others.Learn more.
I played with this - works really nicely to solve the problem of a middleware callinghandle() multiple times. The middleware needs to know they should clone the stack, but I think that's not a huge issue.
| return$this->iterator =null; | ||
| } | ||
| return$this->stack[] =$this->iterator->current(); |
weaverryanApr 23, 2019 • edited
Loading Uh oh!
There was an error while loading.Please reload this page.
edited
Uh oh!
There was an error while loading.Please reload this page.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others.Learn more.
I had to stare at this for a minute. When you clone theStackMiddleware, each clone will still maintain this same, one instance of thisMiddlewareStack, but will now maintain their ownStackMiddleware.offset property (so, that property will move independently). The firstStackMiddleware that uses an item from the iterator will use it, but store it on the stack so that it's available when the otherStackMiddleware asks for that same$offset.
| /** | ||
| * @internal | ||
| */ | ||
| class MiddlewareStack |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others.Learn more.
Can't you simply drop the iterator, store middleware as array inStackMiddleware and advance the pointer manually?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others.Learn more.
That would defeat laziness, which is a desired property.
…are stack (nicolas-grekas)This PR was merged into the 4.3-dev branch.Discussion----------[Messenger] ease testing and allow forking the middleware stack| Q | A| ------------- | ---| Branch? | master| Bug fix? | no| New feature? | yes| BC breaks? | no| Deprecations? | no| Tests pass? | yes| Fixed tickets |#31179| License | MIT| Doc PR | -A less radical alternative than#31185 that preserves laziness and addresses the linked issue.Commits-------3bdf4b0 [Messenger] ease testing and allow forking the middleware stack
A less radical alternative than#31185 that preserves laziness and addresses the linked issue.