Skip to content

streams: fix regression in unpipe() #9171

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.

Sign up for GitHub

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

Closed
addaleax wants to merge 3 commits into from
Closed

streams: fix regression in unpipe() #9171

Show file tree
Hide file tree
Changes from 2 commits
Commits
Show all changes
3 commits
Select commit Hold shift + click to select a range
431638d
streams: fix regression in `unpipe()`
addaleax Oct 18, 2016
b41cf22
test: add regression test for `unpipe()`
Oct 18, 2016
f140c3f
[squash] addres nit for checking `_readableState.pipes` before unpiping
addaleax Oct 18, 2016
File filter

Filter by extension

Filter by extension
Conversations
Failed to load comments.
Loading
Jump to
Jump to file
Failed to load files.
Loading
Diff view
Diff view
2 changes: 1 addition & 1 deletion lib/_stream_readable.js
View file
Open in desktop
Original file line number Diff line number Diff line change
Expand Up @@ -671,7 +671,7 @@ Readable.prototype.unpipe = function(dest) {
if (index === -1)
return this;

state.pipes.splice(i, 1);
state.pipes.splice(index, 1);
state.pipesCount -= 1;
if (state.pipesCount === 1)
state.pipes = state.pipes[0];
Expand Down
26 changes: 26 additions & 0 deletions test/parallel/test-stream-pipe-unpipe-streams.js
View file
Open in desktop
Original file line number Diff line number Diff line change
@@ -0,0 +1,26 @@
'use strict';
const common = require('../common');
const assert = require('assert');

const { Readable, Writable } = require('stream');

const source = Readable({read: () => {}});
const dest1 = Writable({write: () => {}});
const dest2 = Writable({write: () => {}});

source.pipe(dest1);
source.pipe(dest2);

Copy link
Member

@lpinca lpinca Oct 18, 2016

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Nit: probably unrelated but maybe it makes sense to assert that source._readableState.pipes contains both dest1 and dest2 now.

Copy link
Member Author

@addaleax addaleax Oct 18, 2016

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

@lpinca done

dest1.on('unpipe', common.mustCall(() => {}));
dest2.on('unpipe', common.mustCall(() => {}));

// Should be able to unpipe them in the reverse order that they were piped.

source.unpipe(dest2);

assert.strictEqual(source._readableState.pipes, dest1);
assert.notStrictEqual(source._readableState.pipes, dest2);

source.unpipe(dest1);

assert.strictEqual(source._readableState.pipes, null);