-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 17
Add connection-state API #40
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
Merged
Merged
Changes from all commits
Commits
Show all changes
4 commits
Select commit
Hold shift + click to select a range
0b1c2dd
Add connection-state API
oyvindwe e9cc43d
Fix reconnect loop and add silent-drop detection
oyvindwe 0e1c707
Tighten connection-state API and restore OSError back-compat
oyvindwe 46367ef
Bump default autodiscover_wait from 3.0 to 5.0
oyvindwe File filter
Filter by extension
Conversations
Failed to load comments.
Loading
Jump to
Jump to file
Failed to load files.
Loading
Diff view
Diff view
There are no files selected for viewing
This file contains hidden or 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
This file contains hidden or 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
Oops, something went wrong.
Oops, something went wrong.
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Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.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.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
This general solution is prone to race condition, but is saved since asyncio is single threaded. Any reason not to go for 3× interval? Better example for others or if someone introduces multi threading in the future?
Thoughts for myself to remember risk in future:
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
I don't see a reason to bring back multithreading instead of async/await. As you state, it is much more prone to race conditions.
I have given the timeout interval quite some thought. On my local network, I always get a reply from
HANDSHAKEwithin milliseconds. Even with a poor remote connection (e.g. mobile link to a cabin in the mountains) , you should expect a reply within about 10 seconds, worst case around 15 seconds.Per spec,
pynoboshould sendKEEPALIVEto the hub every 14 seconds. However, this message does not include a reply, which I guess is whyHANDSHAKEwas chosen instead (I believe this is from original implementation). The hub will disconnect if it does not see a message for 30 seconds - doesn't matter what message as far as I understand it.On my local network, I could have had a timeout of 1 second, but it's unnecessary complicated to have dynamic timeout depending on connectivity. 2 x interval (=28s) is a reasonable compromise. 3 x interval (=42s) seems longer than necessary to me.