-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 6
feat: Make the futures returned by the rpc sugar functions 'static #10
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
Merged
Merged
Changes from all commits
Commits
File filter
Filter by extension
Conversations
Failed to load comments.
Loading
Jump to
Jump to file
Failed to load files.
Loading
Diff view
Diff view
There are no files selected for viewing
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
Oops, something went wrong.
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Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.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.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
R could have the bound
RpcMessage, and M could have the boundLocalRpcMessageto DRY the bounds. Not sure if this is worth it. I guess it depends a bit on if we need to take away some of the bounds for WASM. @matheus23 WDYT?There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Sorry, I have a really hard time reading this type signature.
In general, if you're wondering if it's okay to have a
T: Sendbound in Wasm, then you simply need to answer this question: "WillTcontain/refer to aJsValue?"Such a value could be a
JsPromiseif it just made a call to sth async (this happens a lot when you have async APIs and is what makes rust futures in async non-Sendin practice a lot), or it could be because you're storing a jsErrorvalue in there, which is the other common thing.I'd very hesitantly say you're good in this case to just have a
Sendbound. But again, I have no idea what's going on in this type signature, it's quite complex.There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Will T contain/refer to a JsValue?
So if there is a possibility that
Tcontains a JsValue, it must not beSend? I think it is very unlikely that there will be a JsValue in these things.