File added to "files" after fileAdded event fires #318
Comments
drzraf
pushed a commit
to drzraf/flow.js
that referenced
this issue
Oct 12, 2020
…total amount of bytes to upload. The number of chunks may also be off. Let fail safely: - if read using an async function - and the last chunk read less bytes than usual (including 0) - and the current chunk read no byte - assume that this chunk is in fact superfluous and simulate its completion. Previous discussion on: flowjs#42 flowjs#318 In the long-term Flow.js may have to support the concept of "approximate chunk number".
drzraf
pushed a commit
to drzraf/flow.js
that referenced
this issue
Oct 13, 2020
…total amount of bytes to upload. The number of chunks may also be off. Let fail safely: - if read using an async function - and the last chunk read less bytes than usual (including 0) - and the current chunk read no byte - assume that this chunk is in fact superfluous and simulate its completion. Previous discussion on: flowjs#42 flowjs#318 In the long-term Flow.js may have to support the concept of "approximate chunk number".
drzraf
pushed a commit
to drzraf/flow.js
that referenced
this issue
Oct 15, 2020
Since implementing a good concurrency-handler may be painful we provide a promise-based read-locking one so that asyncReadFileFn is safe to use out-of-the-box. Given that streams-read are often unable to correctly/exactly compute their final amount of bytes to upload, the number of chunks may also be off. We handle this in a safe way via FlowChunk.readBytes: - if read using an async function - and the last chunk read less bytes than usual (including 0) - and the current chunk read no byte - assume that this chunk is in fact superfluous and simulate its completion. Previous discussion on: * flowjs#42 * flowjs#318 (In the long-term Flow.js may have to support the concept of "approximate chunk number")
drzraf
pushed a commit
to drzraf/flow.js
that referenced
this issue
Oct 15, 2020
Since implementing a good concurrency-handler may be painful we provide a promise-based read-locking one so that asyncReadFileFn is safe to use out-of-the-box. Given that streams-read are often unable to correctly/exactly compute their final amount of bytes to upload, the number of chunks may also be off. We handle this in a safe way via FlowChunk.readBytes: - if read using an async function - and the last chunk read less bytes than usual (including 0) - and the current chunk read no byte - assume that this chunk is in fact superfluous and simulate its completion. Previous discussion on: * flowjs#42 * flowjs#318 (In the long-term Flow.js may have to support the concept of "approximate chunk number")
drzraf
added a commit
that referenced
this issue
Dec 31, 2020
Support async function for readFileFn Since implementing a good concurrency-handler may be painful we provide a promise-based read-locking one so that asyncReadFileFn is safe to use out-of-the-box. Given that streams-read are often unable to correctly/exactly compute their final amount of bytes to upload, the number of chunks may also be off. We handle this in a safe way via FlowChunk.readBytes: - if read using an async function - and the last chunk read less bytes than usual (including 0) - and the current chunk read no byte - assume that this chunk is in fact superfluous and simulate its completion. Previous discussion on: * #42 * #318 (In the long-term Flow.js may have to support the concept of "approximate chunk number")
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
I want to run some checks when
flow.on('fileAdded')is fired, for example comparing the file size with a threshold.In case the file is too big, I want to reject it and call
flow.cancel().However, the file is actually not in the
flow.fileslist at that point. It is added directly afterwards, seeflow.js:So calling
cancel()doesn't work, the file is added to the list and stays there.This behavior has already led to unexpected behavior several times in my project.
I work around it by running the file size check at a later point, but isn't there a better way to handle this? Am I missing something?
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: