protocols/request-response: Remove InboundFailure::ConnectionClosed #1863
Conversation
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
The `InboundFailure::ConnectionClosed` event is never emitted by the `RequestResponse` `NetworkBehaviour`. Responses to be send on a closed connection are simply dropped.
|
Let me try and see if I can up with an alternative by tomorrow. |
|
Thanks @romanb. This is not blocking any of my work and thus is not in a rush. |
|
Superseded by #1867. |
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
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Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.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.
The
InboundFailure::ConnectionClosedevent is never emitted by theRequestResponseNetworkBehaviour. Responses to be send on a closed connection are simply dropped.See #1860 (comment) for details.
For now the event is just removed to fix the status quo. In the future we might want to extend the events emitted by
RequestResponseregarding inbound requests to give users more visibility. This is not trivial, see #1860 for details.What do you think?