fix(core): Fix scope capturing via captureContext function
#10735
Conversation
This file contains 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
size-limit report 📦
|
lforst
approved these changes
Feb 20, 2024
mydea
added a commit
that referenced
this pull request
Feb 20, 2024
In #9801, we introduced a regression that if you pass a function as `captureContext` to capture methods, the returned scope is not used. The cause for this was a confusion on my end, based on the slightly weird way this works in `scope.update(fn)` - we don't actually merge this or update the scope based on the return value of `fn`, but `fn` receives the `scope` as argument, does nothing with the return type of `fn` and just returns it - which we didn't use, because I assumed that `scope.update` would actually return the scope (also, the return type of it is `this` which is not correct there). This PR changes this so that the returned scope of `fn` is actually merged with the scope, same as if you'd pass a `scope` directly - so this is fundamentally the same now: ```js const otherScope = new Scope(); scope.update(otherScope); scope.update(() => otherScope); ``` (which before would have had vastly different outcomes!) I added a bunch of tests to verify how this works/should work. Fixes #10686
mydea
added a commit
that referenced
this pull request
Feb 20, 2024
…#10737) Backport to v7. In #9801, we introduced a regression that if you pass a function as `captureContext` to capture methods, the returned scope is not used. The cause for this was a confusion on my end, based on the slightly weird way this works in `scope.update(fn)` - we don't actually merge this or update the scope based on the return value of `fn`, but `fn` receives the `scope` as argument, does nothing with the return type of `fn` and just returns it - which we didn't use, because I assumed that `scope.update` would actually return the scope (also, the return type of it is `this` which is not correct there). This PR changes this so that the returned scope of `fn` is actually merged with the scope, same as if you'd pass a `scope` directly - so this is fundamentally the same now: ```js const otherScope = new Scope(); scope.update(otherScope); scope.update(() => otherScope); ``` (which before would have had vastly different outcomes!) I added a bunch of tests to verify how this works/should work. Fixes #10686
This was referenced Mar 12, 2024
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.
In #9801, we introduced a regression that if you pass a function as
captureContextto capture methods, the returned scope is not used.The cause for this was a confusion on my end, based on the slightly weird way this works in
scope.update(fn)- we don't actually merge this or update the scope based on the return value offn, butfnreceives thescopeas argument, does nothing with the return type offnand just returns it - which we didn't use, because I assumed thatscope.updatewould actually return the scope (also, the return type of it isthiswhich is not correct there).This PR changes this so that the returned scope of
fnis actually merged with the scope, same as if you'd pass ascopedirectly - so this is fundamentally the same now:(which before would have had vastly different outcomes!)
I added a bunch of tests to verify how this works/should work.
Fixes #10686