If a function receives a callback argument then it should not return a promise
if the caller's callback will be invoked. Both invoking a callback and
returning a promise can lead to at best confusion (in code review and at
runtime) and at worst non-deterministic behavior, such as race
conditions. Also, a caller supplying a callback may not handle a returned
promise, leading to unhandled rejection errors.
Refactor all readily identified functions where a callback argument can be
supplied but the function returns a promise regardless. Make use of
`callbackify` and `promisify` where it made sense to do so during the
refactoring. Some callsites of the revised functions may have been accidentally
overlooked and still need to be updated. Some functions that take callback
arguments may execute them synchronously, at odds with control flow of a
returned promise (if a callback wasn't supplied). Such cases should be
identified and fixed so that asynchronous behavior is fully consistent whether
the caller supplies a callback or receives a promise.
Make sure promises that pass control flow to a callback ignore rejections,
since those should be handled by the callback.
Don't return promise instances unnecessarily from async functions (since they
always return promises) and change some functions that return promises to async
functions (where it's simple to do so).
Whisper was using an ad hoc promise-like `messageEvents` object. However, that
object behaved more like an observable, since promises either resolve or
reject, and only do so one time. `messageEvents` was also intertwined with
callbacks. Replace `messageEvents` with RxJS Observable. `listenTo` now returns
Observable instances and callers can subscribe to them.
`Blockchain.connect` of embarkjs could suffer from a race condition where tasks
associated with `execWhenReady` might be ongoing when `connect`'s returned
promise resolves/rejects (or a caller supplied callback fires). Attempt to
ensure that returned-promise / supplied-callback control flow proceeds only
after `execWhenReady` tasks have finished. The control flow involved
is... rather involved, and it could use some further review and refactoring.
Bump webpack and the hard-source-plugin for webpack.
[util]: https://www.npmjs.com/package/util
[PR 1318][PR1318] introduces a monorepo member that's used as a DApp
dependency, but the present arrangement whereby `test_dapps/` is an embedded
monorepo makes it difficult to develop and test such packages in tandem with
changes to `test_dapps/packages/*`.
Reorganize `test_dapps/*` as members of the root monorepo and make various
adjustments accordingly. This makes it easy to develop test dapps and any
packages they depend on simultaneously, but we lose the CI/QA arrangement where
test dapps are run with an embark installed from fresh tarballs. That
arrangement, which is quite worthwhile as a means to detect problems arising
from transitive dependencies as soon as possible, will be re-introduced in
another PR, possibly involving an auxiliary repository such as
embark-framework/dapp-bin.
Since the `package.json` `"test"` scripts of `test_dapps/*` are now kicked off
as part of `yarn test` in the root, and since port allocation isn't fully
dynamic, it's important to run `yarn test` with `lerna run`'s `--concurrency=1`
option. For the same reasons, the root `ci` and `qa` scripts are similarly
restricted. In the future, this setup can be refactored and improved, along
with use of `lerna run`'s `--since` option to increase testing efficiency in
CI.
[PR1318]: https://github.com/embark-framework/embark/pull/1318
Jonathan Rainville
Michael Bradley, Jr
emizzle