-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 173
feat(event-handler): throw error when middleware does not await next() #4511
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
Open
svozza
wants to merge
1
commit into
main
Choose a base branch
from
event-handler/throw-middleware-no-await-next
base: main
Could not load branches
Branch not found: {{ refName }}
Loading
Could not load tags
Nothing to show
Loading
Are you sure you want to change the base?
Some commits from the old base branch may be removed from the timeline,
and old review comments may become outdated.
Open
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
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Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.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.
What do you think about logging a warning instead?
As the error message hints at, we don't know for sure if this will cause issues, so there's a chance we're throwing a 500 error and breaking the customer API prematurely.
If we log a warning instead, at best we are helping them solve these subtle bugs, at worst we just let them know and they can remove the warning by fixing it.
Also can we in any way include the middleware name (aka function name) in the message?
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.
If a middleware can be used to control fine-grained authorization on a route/global, for example, and potentially executes out of order, allowing other middleware to execute even without proper authorization and introducing potential security issues, I believe this should thrown an error for the developer to fix in the DEV ENV. Also, make it super cleat in the doc.
If not and a middleware can only be used for other purposes, a warning makes more sense.
In Python, customers use middleware to execute custom authN and AuthZ.
Uh oh!
There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.
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.
I'm open to persuasion here but this is my reasoning:
reqCtx.res.body
even something as innoucous asreqCtx.res = new Response(reqCtx.res.body)
will throw an error. Which would you rather receive as an error in prod:TypeError [ERR_INVALID_STATE]: Invalid state: The ReadableStream is locked
or'Middleware called next() without awaiting. This may lead to unexpected behavior.
?Regarding the middleware name, I had thought that we could add the number in the chain, ie.,
the middleware at position ${i} in the middleware stack did not call next
. This might make it easier to find because a lot of middleware could just be anonymous functions but maybe we could do the function name and fall back to the location if the function is anonymous.