FetchEvent.request.signal should be correctly aborted
Categories
(Core :: DOM: Service Workers, enhancement, P2)
Tracking
()
People
(Reporter: baku, Unassigned)
References
(Blocks 1 open bug)
Details
Attachments
(2 files, 3 obsolete files)
2.52 KB,
patch
|
bkelly
:
review+
|
Details | Diff | Splinter Review |
11.74 KB,
patch
|
bkelly
:
review+
|
Details | Diff | Splinter Review |
Updated•7 years ago
|
Comment 1•7 years ago
|
||
Comment 2•7 years ago
|
||
Updated•7 years ago
|
Reporter | ||
Comment 3•7 years ago
|
||
Reporter | ||
Comment 4•7 years ago
|
||
Comment 5•7 years ago
|
||
Reporter | ||
Comment 6•7 years ago
|
||
Updated•7 years ago
|
Reporter | ||
Comment 7•7 years ago
|
||
Comment 8•7 years ago
|
||
Comment 9•7 years ago
|
||
Comment 10•7 years ago
|
||
Comment 13•7 years ago
|
||
Reporter | ||
Updated•7 years ago
|
Comment 15•7 years ago
|
||
Comment 17•7 years ago
|
||
Reporter | ||
Updated•7 years ago
|
Comment 19•7 years ago
|
||
Comment 20•7 years ago
|
||
Comment 21•7 years ago
|
||
Comment 22•7 years ago
|
||
Reporter | ||
Comment 23•7 years ago
|
||
Assignee | ||
Updated•6 years ago
|
Updated•5 years ago
|
Updated•5 years ago
|
Updated•2 years ago
|
Comment 27•2 years ago
|
||
Wait, the last backout in comment #22 happened because of TEST-UNEXPECTED-PASS? That should have been easy to fix...
Comment 28•2 years ago
•
|
||
:saschanaz, you are right. As this fix is required for my bug Bug 1394102, I would like to see if this still works on latest load. I can rebase the patch containing the fix and WPT on top of central and push it on try server.
Please let me know if you had already tried this?
Comment 29•2 years ago
|
||
You mean bug 1793736. It seems the corresponding files are heavily refactored since then and thus rebasing doesn't seem straightforward. If you can see how it should be rebased then please do 👍
Comment 30•2 years ago
|
||
(In reply to Kagami :saschanaz from comment #29)
You mean bug 1793736. It seems the corresponding files are heavily refactored since then and thus rebasing doesn't seem straightforward. If you can see how it should be rebased then please do 👍
Thank you. As you have pointed out, rebasing is not straightforward. I will reach out to you in case I need help.
Comment 31•2 years ago
|
||
Updated•2 years ago
|
Comment 32•9 months ago
|
||
This issue has not been updated in over 2 years, I assume work towards fixing this was stalled?
https://github.com/w3c/ServiceWorker/issues/1544#issuecomment-2099263362
When a ServiceWorker is handling the "fetch" event from a tab, and the tab is closed, the fetch request.signal is not aborted.
This makes it difficult to abort requests in the ServiceWorker once a client goes away.
As far as I can tell the only workaround is to check the clientId on the request and poll self.clients.get() to check if the client is still present until it either goes away or the request is completed.
Description
•