Return callback error vs throwing #180
Merged
Conversation
This file contains hidden or 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
Signed-off-by: Matthew Peveler <[email protected]>
Member
|
Yep I agree. Thanks again for helping out. |
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
2 participants
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Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.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.
Fixes #171
PR makes it so that instead of having
getPortthrow errors in some cases, it'll instead return an error on the callback. This allows for a singular error handling necessary for end users (namely around the callback), vs requiring them to both worry about the callback as well as wrapping thegetPortcall in a try/catch.I think that there's more options validation that could happen here (e.g. if
options.startPortis provided, should probably have similar checks), but that can be done in a follow-up once this pattern is established on how to return errors to the user.