Bugzilla

Revision mainly to tidy up jsdoc use.

Kind of at the outer limits of my JS knowledge here - in particular my implementation of `Connection.read()` seems a little off: mixing Promises with async. Suggestions for improvement welcome!

(In reply to Magnus Melin [:mkmelin] from comment #6)
> ::: mailnews/test/fakeserver/Binaryd.jsm
> @@ +105,5 @@
> > +            // if we get here, assume the error occured because we're
> > +            // shutting down, and ignore it.
> > +          } else {
> > +            // if we get here, something went wrong.
> > +            dump("ERROR " + e.toString());
> 
> Should the error be let un-caught instead?
> 
> @@ +109,5 @@
> > +            dump("ERROR " + e.toString());
> > +          }
> > +        }
> > +        conn.close();
> > +        delete server._connections[connID];
> 
> and these in a finally clause?

I'm not sure yet. For a real server, you want it to keep running even if one connection explodes, so I kind of think our fake server should aim for that. But for testing purposes it could be nice if the whole server explodes too :-)
I've left it as is for now. It can be revisited if some tests require a change.

Revision mainly to tidy up jsdoc use.

Kind of at the outer limits of my JS knowledge here - in particular my implementation of `Connection.read()` seems a little off: mixing Promises with async. Suggestions for improvement welcome!

(In reply to Magnus Melin [:mkmelin] from comment #6)
```
> ::: mailnews/test/fakeserver/Binaryd.jsm
> @@ +105,5 @@
> > +            // if we get here, assume the error occured because we're
> > +            // shutting down, and ignore it.
> > +          } else {
> > +            // if we get here, something went wrong.
> > +            dump("ERROR " + e.toString());
> 
> Should the error be let un-caught instead?
> 
> @@ +109,5 @@
> > +            dump("ERROR " + e.toString());
> > +          }
> > +        }
> > +        conn.close();
> > +        delete server._connections[connID];
> 
> and these in a finally clause?
```
I'm not sure yet. For a real server, you want it to keep running even if one connection explodes, so I kind of think our fake server should aim for that. But for testing purposes it could be nice if the whole server explodes too :-)
I've left it as is for now. It can be revisited if some tests require a change.