I'm coming out of reading this a bit dismayed as I really thought that the `if let` (to use the swift conventions) pattern would finally be a good and reliable solution for these silent errors.
And at the same time, reading the code in question and putting myself into the position of a person writing the code, I would totally have thought that I'm handling the "is there a global scope" case, totally forgetting that the same check is also checking the "is the global scope a `WorkerGlobalScope`" condition but mixing both checks into a single return value.
And here we are with the code happily chugging along and (for all intents and purposes) causing data corruption (by causing network requests to not be logged and not respect policy).
And here I was thinking that `if let` is fixing exactly this problem while also providing the best ergonomics.
So here we are back to the drawing board, ready for the next pattern which will compromise on ergonomics in some as-yet unknown way in the future.
And at the same time, reading the code in question and putting myself into the position of a person writing the code, I would totally have thought that I'm handling the "is there a global scope" case, totally forgetting that the same check is also checking the "is the global scope a `WorkerGlobalScope`" condition but mixing both checks into a single return value.
And here we are with the code happily chugging along and (for all intents and purposes) causing data corruption (by causing network requests to not be logged and not respect policy).
And here I was thinking that `if let` is fixing exactly this problem while also providing the best ergonomics.
So here we are back to the drawing board, ready for the next pattern which will compromise on ergonomics in some as-yet unknown way in the future.