Skip to content

fix(teeny-request): destroy response stream if request stream is destroyed early #9160

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

Draft
westarle wants to merge 1 commit into
base: main
Choose a base branch
from
Draft

fix(teeny-request): destroy response stream if request stream is destroyed early #9160

Show file tree
Hide file tree
Changes from all commits
Commits
Show all changes
1 commit
Select commit
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
12 changes: 10 additions & 2 deletions core/packages/teeny-request/src/index.ts
View file
Open in desktop
Original file line number Diff line number Diff line change
Expand Up @@ -278,10 +278,18 @@ function teenyRequest(
let responseStream: any;
requestStream.once('reading', () => {
if (responseStream) {
pipeline(responseStream, requestStream, () => {});
if (!requestStream.destroyed) {
pipeline(responseStream, requestStream, () => {});
} else if (responseStream && typeof responseStream.destroy === 'function') {
responseStream.destroy();
}
Comment on lines +281 to +285

@gemini-code-assist gemini-code-assist Bot Aug 18, 2026

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

medium

The check responseStream && is redundant here because this block is already nested inside if (responseStream) on line 280. We can safely simplify this condition.

        if (!requestStream.destroyed) {
          pipeline(responseStream, requestStream, () => {});
        } else if (typeof responseStream.destroy === 'function') {
          responseStream.destroy();
        }

} else {
requestStream.once('response', () => {
pipeline(responseStream, requestStream, () => {});
if (!requestStream.destroyed) {
pipeline(responseStream, requestStream, () => {});
} else if (responseStream && typeof responseStream.destroy === 'function') {
responseStream.destroy();
}
});
}
});
Expand Down
19 changes: 19 additions & 0 deletions core/packages/teeny-request/test/index.ts
View file
Open in desktop
Original file line number Diff line number Diff line change
Expand Up @@ -298,6 +298,25 @@ describe('teeny', () => {
});
});

it('should not pipe if request stream is destroyed early', done => {
const scope = mockJson();

const stream = teenyRequest({uri});
stream.on('error', done);

stream.once('response', response => {
response.body.once('close', () => {
scope.done();
done();
});

// Destroy the stream before piping can be fully set up
stream.destroy();
});

stream.resume();
});
Comment on lines +301 to +318

@gemini-code-assist gemini-code-assist Bot Aug 18, 2026

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

medium

Using an arbitrary setTimeout in asynchronous tests can lead to flakiness in slower CI/CD environments. Since we expect the stream to be destroyed, we can listen directly to the close event of the response body to resolve the test, which is more robust and faster.

  it('should not pipe if request stream is destroyed early', done => {
    const scope = mockJson();

    const stream = teenyRequest({uri});
    stream.on('error', done);

    stream.once('response', response => {
      response.body.once('close', () => {
        scope.done();
        done();
      });

      // Destroy the stream before piping can be fully set up
      stream.destroy();
    });

    stream.resume();
  });


it('should expose TeenyStatistics instance', () => {
assert.ok(teenyRequest.stats instanceof TeenyStatistics);
});
Expand Down
Loading