fix(typescript): classify connection failures#252
Merged
Conversation
Owner
Author
REVScope: TypeScript client parity/code review only. SOC2/compliance checklist skipped. Finding addressedREV rerun found that TypeScript still classified operation-time connection/pool failures as
Review resultClean for this focused follow-up. What changed
Gates
No remaining blocker found in this patch. |
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
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Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.Suggestions cannot be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.
Summary
Fix REV rerun finding: TypeScript classified operation-time pool/network failures as generic
PgqueSqlError, despitePgqueConnectionErrordocumenting mid-operation drops and Go tagging non-PgError operation failures as connection errors.PgqueConnectionErrorECONNRESETwith in-memory regression testsTest
cd clients/typescript && bun run check && bun run test(33 passed, 50 skipped locally withoutPGQUE_TEST_DSN)git diff --checkREV
REV rerun finding from #251: #251 (comment)