| 14:37 | <Chengzhong Wu> | https://github.com/nodejs/node/pull/52065 I am prototyping using declaration support with AsyncLocalStorage. In order to address unexpected declaration without using, a leakage check is performed when a task (AsyncResource) callback is finished. If there is any active disposable async local storage value, an error is emitted to hint such misuse. |
| 14:44 | <Chengzhong Wu> | This could help in less refactoring when adding async context support, i.e. no need to create a new function/arrow function for sub-operations and avoid violating TCP when mutating async context values, as rbuckton suggested. |
| 14:54 | <Andreu Botella> | what happens if you have AsyncLocalStorageDisposableStores created and disposed of in a non-stacked way? |
| 14:57 | <Chengzhong Wu> | At the moment, it restores the bound AsyncLocalStorage value to the one when it was created. However, I think it could avoid restoring the value if the bound AsyncLocalStorage was changed so that it could produce fewer conflicts. |
| 19:51 | <Andreu Botella> | Hey, I have a version the V8 design doc ready, pending any comments you might have. PTAL |
| 19:51 | <Andreu Botella> | https://docs.google.com/document/d/19gkKY6qC3L5X8WtSAmFq33iNnzeer1mL5495oT1owjY/edit?usp=sharing |
| 22:08 | <littledan> | LGTM, ship it! |
| 22:09 | <littledan> | hey, given that it seems that proposals don't really need their web integration fully worked out until Stage 3 (I previously thought it was needed at 2.7), is AsyncContext good to go to Stage 2.7 at the next TC39 meeting? I think it is! |
| 22:17 | <ljharb> | it seems like there's been lots of changes since it got stage 2 - i've not been able to follow the very complex PRs/discussions, fwiw - and it'd be good to have a thorough recap/update before asking for advancement (iow, pls don't underestimate the timebox) |
| 22:18 | <littledan> | yep, +1 on a strong recap and allocating an hour to this |
| 22:23 | <Andreu Botella> | littledan: I had a document that I shared with Scott Haseley in January with some ideas for the task attribution integration. Do you think it would be good to link it? |
| 22:23 | <Andreu Botella> | it's very rough around the edges and not anything formal |
| 22:26 | <littledan> | littledan: I had a document that I shared with Scott Haseley in January with some ideas for the task attribution integration. Do you think it would be good to link it? |
| 22:31 | <Andreu Botella> | actually, that document describes a different shape of the embedder API than the design doc |
| 22:31 | <Andreu Botella> | let me update that |