Resolve promises before enqueuing events

[joeyparrish]

Closes #461

---

Preview | Diff

[joeyparrish]

@jrummell-chromium JFYI

[chrisn]

@jernoble Does this look OK to you, any potential interop concerns?

[marcoscaceres]

I don’t think this is correct. Promises need to be resolved in task queues also. Also, promises should resolve with something even if that’s an explicit undefined.

[joeyparrish]

Promises need to be resolved in task queues also.

I don't understand what you mean by this. Can you suggest an edit to show me what language you would agree with?

[marcoscaceres]

Sorry for the delay:

For example, from the Fetch spec:

1. Queue a fetch task to run the following steps, with fetchParams’s task destination.
   1.1 Pull from bytes buffer into stream.
   1.1 If stream is errored, then terminate fetchParams’s controller.
   1.1 Resolve promise with undefined.

See also https://www.w3.org/TR/web-share/ ... how the global task queue is used to resolve promises.

[joeyparrish]

I audited every instance of "resolve" or "resolved" in the spec. All have values, and all are now inside either "Run the following steps in parallel" or "queue a task" or "Use the cdm to execute". (I had to fix only one instance of a missing queue, in the recently-introduced method getStatusForPolicy().)

[joeyparrish]

Also worth a note, since we're being thorough: we resolve a promise inside the session closed algorithm, which is always run inside a task or in a set of parallel steps.

[joeyparrish]

I'm ready to merge this if there is no further feedback.

I'll be on leave for five weeks starting June 22, so if a positive consensus is reached after that date, please don't wait for me to hit the "merge" button.