-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 4.9k
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
Use MaxAttemptsReachedOnReconnectingError
similar to v1.x
#5894
Merged
Muhammad-Altabba
merged 15 commits into
4.x
from
feature/5889/keep-emitting-the-error-as-an-object-for-maximum-number-of-reconnect-attempts-reached
Mar 9, 2023
Merged
Changes from all commits
Commits
Show all changes
15 commits
Select commit
Hold shift + click to select a range
f8483b3
pass `_socketOptions` from IpcProvider constructor to the underlying …
Muhammad-Altabba 9ba98e2
move a comment to its correct position at `SocketProvider`
Muhammad-Altabba 7e96e84
expose the getter of `SocketConnection` from `SocketProvider`.
Muhammad-Altabba e450485
update CHANGELOG.md files
Muhammad-Altabba fd9dd2c
add extremely simple unit test for SocketProvider
Muhammad-Altabba 9800deb
removed unused import at a test
Muhammad-Altabba b74a281
use `MaxAttemptsReachedOnReconnectingError` similar to v1.x
Muhammad-Altabba 6e84af7
modify CHANGELOG.md
Muhammad-Altabba 9e1d763
Merge branch 'feature/5887/the-options-passed-to-the-ipcprovider-is-n…
Muhammad-Altabba 8526464
Merge branch '4.x' into feature/5889/keep-emitting-the-error-as-an-ob…
Muhammad-Altabba ea8fbcb
fix a test
Muhammad-Altabba bc74b2b
Merge branch 'feature/5889/keep-emitting-the-error-as-an-object-for-m…
Muhammad-Altabba 1e93e01
Merge branch '4.x' into feature/5889/keep-emitting-the-error-as-an-ob…
Muhammad-Altabba ea897ec
Merge branch '4.x' into feature/5889/keep-emitting-the-error-as-an-ob…
Muhammad-Altabba 84029a2
edit CHAINGLOG.md
Muhammad-Altabba 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 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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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.
https://github.com/web3/web3.js/runs/11848321915 codecov seems to be failing, otherwise PR LGTM
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.
Thanks @luu-alex ,
Actually, this is tested twice inside web3-providers-ws and web3-providers-ipc. But CodeCov does not check across packages. So, I think it is safe to ignore it. Or what do you think?
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.
couldn't we have a dedicated test in
web3-utils
for that?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.
Actually, we can. But it will require a complex scenario that is already tested twice with IpcProvider and WebSocketProvider. So, writing the test will be just time-consuming, I think 😊 .
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.
currently codecov is only checking unit-testing inside packages and not counting any coverage for tests across packages ( integration tests )