Skip to content
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

Promise.coroutine: yielding a function should not call the function #1314

Closed
giltayar opened this issue Jan 4, 2017 · 4 comments
Closed

Promise.coroutine: yielding a function should not call the function #1314

giltayar opened this issue Jan 4, 2017 · 4 comments

Comments

@giltayar
Copy link
Contributor

@giltayar giltayar commented Jan 4, 2017

  1. What version of bluebird is the issue happening on?
    3.4.7

  2. What platform and version? (For example Node.js 0.12 or Google Chrome 32)
    Tested on Node 7, but I'm guessing it's true for all platforms

  3. Did this issue happen with earlier version of bluebird?
    Probably.

Given:

(Promise.coroutine(function*() {
  yield function () { console.log('hi'); };
}))();

You would not expect "hi" to be written to log, because we're yielding a value (which is a function), and not calling the function.

But it does print "hi". And then returns a rejected error.

I have prepared a pull-request that contains a fix, which I will submit in a few minutes.

giltayar pushed a commit to giltayar/bluebird that referenced this issue Jan 4, 2017
…tion

   When rejecting a non-promise value, string.replace is used,
    and the value is passed as second parameter.
    But string.replace, if the second value is a function, will
    call that function.
    This commit fixes this by using value.toString().
@benjamingr
Copy link
Collaborator

@benjamingr benjamingr commented Jan 4, 2017

Fix LGTM. @petkaantonov ptal.

@petkaantonov
Copy link
Owner

@petkaantonov petkaantonov commented Jan 4, 2017

+ "" is sufficient

@benjamingr
Copy link
Collaborator

@benjamingr benjamingr commented Jan 4, 2017

Or String(value)

@giltayar
Copy link
Contributor Author

@giltayar giltayar commented Jan 5, 2017

I chose @benjamingr's change - it seems more explicit to me. Thanks for pointing the (I hope slightly) awkward code out.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Projects
None yet
Linked pull requests

Successfully merging a pull request may close this issue.

None yet
3 participants
You can’t perform that action at this time.