docs: clarify error handlers are final and don't call next()

[taosin]

Summary

• Add doc comments to errorHandler and wsErrorHandler clarifying they are final handlers and intentionally do not call next().

Rationale

• Keeps behavior documentation consistent between HTTP and WebSocket error handlers.
• Makes intent visible at the function level (more discoverable than an inline comment).

Test plan

• Not applicable (comment-only change).

[code-asher]

Thanks for the PR! I am not convinced we need the comment, to me the end is self-explanatory.

We also make no such comments for why the non-websocket error handler also does not call next(), so it seems inconsistent.

I think it would make more sense as a comment on wsErrorHandler and errorHandler themselves though, because those would show up in the documentation when calling the functions, where end would not be visible and thus less self-explanatory. Something like:

This handler does not call next even though it accepts it as an argument. It should only be used as the final handler for a route.

[taosin]

Thanks for the PR! I am not convinced we need the comment, to me the end is self-explanatory.

We also make no such comments for why the non-websocket error handler also does not call next(), so it seems inconsistent.

I think it would make more sense as a comment on wsErrorHandler and errorHandler themselves though, because those would show up in the documentation when calling the functions, where end would not be visible and thus less self-explanatory. Something like:

This handler does not call next even though it accepts it as an argument. It should only be used as the final handler for a route.

Thanks for the review!

Good point — I agree the inline comment near end() is a bit noisy and also inconsistent with errorHandler.
I’ve moved the explanation to a doc comment on both errorHandler and wsErrorHandler to keep them consistent and make it visible where the functions are referenced, and removed the inline comment.