cursor.request

Question

cursor.request

jakearchibald opened this issue 5 years ago · comments

Requests for cursors are different as they can succeed many times. When you call cursor.continue() the success of that operation is provided in the request returned by source.openCursor().

If I want to give an object store to another piece of code, I can just pass the object store. However, if I want to pass the cursor elsewhere, I also have to pass the related request.

Should cursor.request return https://w3c.github.io/IndexedDB/#cursor-request?

Joshua Bell · Answer 1 · Tue Mar 05 2019 02:11:59 GMT+0800 (China Standard Time)

I've run into wanting this for prollyfills. SGTM.

Should be easy to spec/test/ship.

Jake Archibald · Answer 2 · Tue Mar 05 2019 19:42:55 GMT+0800 (China Standard Time)

Yeah, I ran into this trying to make wrap() and unwrap() functions that 'upgrade' IDB objects. Works for everything except cursors.

Jake Archibald · Answer 3 · Wed Mar 06 2019 19:33:50 GMT+0800 (China Standard Time)

I'll take this on.

I've been wanting to document how standards are developed for a while, so @surma and I will film ourselves updating the spec and writing tests.

Joshua Bell · Answer 4 · Thu Mar 07 2019 03:19:22 GMT+0800 (China Standard Time)

@asutherland @aliams @beidson - any feedback on this?

aliams · Answer 5 · Thu Mar 07 2019 04:03:20 GMT+0800 (China Standard Time)

No objections here. It sounds like we're just exposing a property that is already initialized as part of the cursor and should live as long as the cursor.

Andrew Sutherland · Answer 6 · Thu Mar 07 2019 04:04:16 GMT+0800 (China Standard Time)

Did my thumbs-up not say it all? ;) This sounds good from a Gecko/Firefox perspective. We have the request available and Jake's magical upgrade use-case sounds both reasonable and essential to help move IDB forward from an API that only an implementer could love to the favorite API of developers everywhere!

Brady Eidson · Answer 7 · Thu Mar 07 2019 04:04:38 GMT+0800 (China Standard Time)

yah this is fine.

Joshua Bell · Answer 8 · Thu Mar 07 2019 04:36:14 GMT+0800 (China Standard Time)

Thumbs everywhere! Thanks all!

Thanks @jakearchibald and @surma - looking forward to the PRs. Blink change should be trivial once WPTs are in.

Joshua Bell · Answer 9 · Tue Mar 19 2019 07:17:00 GMT+0800 (China Standard Time)

Filed https://bugs.chromium.org/p/chromium/issues/detail?id=943344 to track Blink impl

Andrew Sutherland · Answer 10 · Wed Mar 20 2019 02:14:46 GMT+0800 (China Standard Time)

Filed https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1536540 to track Gecko/Firefox impl.

Soviut · Answer 11 · Wed Apr 17 2019 01:07:19 GMT+0800 (China Standard Time)

For posterity, here's the episode @jakearchibald and @surma did about this very issue https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y1TEPQz02iU

Joshua Bell · Answer 12 · Sat May 04 2019 00:29:14 GMT+0800 (China Standard Time)

FYI, @Yannic's change just landed in the Chromium repo so this should be available for testing in the next Chrome Canary build.

Julien Wajsberg · Answer 13 · Mon Apr 27 2020 17:57:39 GMT+0800 (China Standard Time)

Just landed in Firefox!

Joshua Bell · Answer 14 · Tue Apr 28 2020 00:10:57 GMT+0800 (China Standard Time)

Hey @julienw - if you know the prospective Firefox release number I can add it to the "under construction" box https://w3c.github.io/IndexedDB/#dom-idbcursor-request

Andrew Sutherland · Answer 15 · Tue Apr 28 2020 05:50:23 GMT+0800 (China Standard Time)

https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1536540 is fixed in Firefox 77, targeted to reach release ~ June 2nd