Fix remove duplicate transaction rejection #3324
Merged
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Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.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.
An attempt to fix third reported issue from #3309.
Basically, if there is
initRejectFn
it means a transaction is used without a container, it means that_promise
is not exposed, it means that if_promise
is rejected there will be an unhandled rejection, it means that we should not reject that promise.initRejectFn
will do fine by itself. If an error happens before a transactor resolved (some problem with a connection) then it will rejectinitPromise
which is returned forknex.transaction()
so it is exposed and handled easily. If an error happens after a transactor resolved, it means thatinitPromise
is already resolved (with said transactor) and callinginitRejectFn
will do nothing, but it is ok since only way to get here is fromexecutionPromise
rejection and it is exposed too and it will reject only after calls tocommit
/rollback
.(Ideally though
commit
androllback
for standalone transactors should reject themselves instead ofexecutionPromise
then it will be easier to handle withasync
/await
and no need to exposeexecutionPromise
, but that is another issue...)(Also removed unneeded duplicate call to
initRejectFn
since_rejecter
will call it anyway)