Skips "opaque" responses when handling life-cycle events

[kettanaito]

GitHub

• Fixes Failed to construct 'Response': The status provided (0) is outside the range [200, 599] #529

Changes

• Response event handler now skips "opaque" responses (those originating from requests with mode: "no-cors") based on their response.type value.
• Improves type annotation of the response object sent from the worker (it's only a partial representation of the Response type).

[codesandbox-ci]

This pull request is automatically built and testable in CodeSandbox.

To see build info of the built libraries, click here or the icon next to each commit SHA.

Latest deployment of this branch, based on commit 5a54e08:

Sandbox	Source
MSW React	Configuration

[kettanaito]

Hey, @timdeschryver. Thank you for writing this test. If you don't mind, I've polished it but a little. I would appreciate your review if you have a spare minute. Thanks!

[kettanaito]

I've replaced the image example with a local test server with a strict CORS policy. This produces the same exception without the fix, making the test fail. The main reason for doing so is to remove any external dependency (such as on an external image provider) in our tests. It should be possible to run all test suites offline, which implies no dependencies on actual servers. We can substitute actual servers with the @open-draft/test-server package.

[kettanaito]

I believe that the Codesandbox build won't succeed with this breaking change to the Service Worker file. Without the addition of the type property in the response sent to the client, the following like will throw indefinitely:

if (responseJson.type.includes('opaque')) {

While this isn't nice, we are going to publish this in the next minor release, indicating a breaking change. That change will imply that you have to update your worker script by npx msw init.

[marcosvega91]

Contrary to what I have said on discord if there is a network error the service worker will not call the function sendToClient. I suggest only adding an extra as in the comment above, then for me is super ok :)

[kettanaito]

Actually, I think you're right to introduce the safety check, @marcosvega91. I've tested this once more and it produces an infinite loop with an outdated worker. I don't think that's a good experience to aim for.

I will add a safety check that will be removed in the minor release after the next one. We'll give it 1 version to bake in.

[timdeschryver]

👍 Thanks for the cleanup!

[marcosvega91]

Nice work 💪🏽