Skip to content
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.

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

fix(takeUntil): complete an observable when notifier completes #2521

Closed
wants to merge 1 commit into from

Conversation

DzmitryShylovich
Copy link
Contributor

@DzmitryShylovich DzmitryShylovich commented Apr 3, 2017

Closes #2160

From the original issue:

I think the correct behaviour would be to terminate when the notifier terminates, however at the very least the docs should be in line with the specs.

As for me it's much more intuitive.

Might be a breaking change though...

@DzmitryShylovich DzmitryShylovich changed the title [WIP] fix(takeUntil): complete an observable when notifier completes fix(takeUntil): complete an observable when notifier completes Apr 3, 2017
@coveralls
Copy link

Coverage Status

Coverage increased (+0.0003%) to 97.687% when pulling 7eb7aa2 on DzmitryShylovich:gh/2160 into bc1e1e5 on ReactiveX:master.

@coveralls
Copy link

Coverage Status

Coverage increased (+0.0003%) to 97.687% when pulling 7eb7aa2 on DzmitryShylovich:gh/2160 into bc1e1e5 on ReactiveX:master.

@jbaudanza
Copy link

I'm very much in favor of this change. If this isn't the way RxJs wants to go, it would be nice to have the docs updated to reflect this.

@benlesh
Copy link
Member

benlesh commented May 3, 2017

I'm not sure what this breaking change buys us. Is there an example where one couldn't just compose a completed observable to necessarily next with concat?

source$.takeUntil(maybeEmpty$.concat(Observable.of(true)))

I'm going to close this for now, because there has been limited interest, and it's a breaking change from any existing version of Rx, with no discernible benefit.

@benlesh benlesh closed this May 3, 2017
@benlesh
Copy link
Member

benlesh commented May 3, 2017

@DzmitryShylovich I really appreciate the effort, and I'm sorry to close this PR. The referenced issue this was meant to close was pretty clear the issue was with documentation and not with the functionality of the operator.

@DzmitryShylovich DzmitryShylovich deleted the gh/2160 branch May 3, 2017 19:13
@jbaudanza
Copy link

@benlesh Fair enough. Would you accept a PR to fix discrepancy with the docs?

@DzmitryShylovich
Copy link
Contributor Author

@jbaudanza see #2418

@lock
Copy link

lock bot commented Jun 6, 2018

This thread has been automatically locked since there has not been any recent activity after it was closed. Please open a new issue for related bugs.

@lock lock bot locked as resolved and limited conversation to collaborators Jun 6, 2018
Sign up for free to subscribe to this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in.
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

4 participants