fix: Skip clearing undefined modules in InProcessRunner
#1339
Conversation
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
pgrzesik
changed the title
InProcessRunner
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
Description
This PR fixes a bug where the
idproperty of an undefined module from the cache is accessed before deleting the module from the cache.Motivation and Context
This problem came up while using
serverless-offlinein combination withserverless-plugin-offline-dynamodb-stream.First i sent a request to a
joinendpoint of my API. This worked. Afterwards i sent a request to theleaveendpoint of my API and the bug in the screenshot appeared.To get rid of this bug, i added an existence check before accessing the
idproperty of the record value in the cache object.How Has This Been Tested?
This has been tested with and without the fix on different HTTP API routes. Without the fix, the bug in the screenshot appeared at the second call on a different route as the first call. With the fix, everything worked as expected.
Screenshots (if appropriate):