Skip to content
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

Make weighing process twice as fast to match speed in README #30

Merged
merged 1 commit into from Jun 8, 2018

Conversation

@ribbons
Copy link
Contributor

@ribbons ribbons commented Jun 8, 2018

The back end waits for 100 milliseconds between sending readings so that it doesn't overwhelm the front-end with readings and complete the weighing process too quickly. However, 100ms * 50 readings = 5 seconds which is a fair bit slower than the 3 seconds mentioned in the README.

To align the weighing speed with the user's expectations from the README, halve the wait between sending readings to 50ms so that the overall process takes 2.5s.

The back end waits for 100 milliseconds between sending readings so
that it doesn't overwhelm the front-end with readings and complete the
weighing process too quickly.  However, 100ms * 50 readings = 5 seconds
which is a fair bit slower than the 3 seconds mentioned in the README.

To align the weighing speed with the user's expectations from the
README, halve the wait between sending readings to 50ms so that the
overall process takes 2.5s.
@aelveborn
Copy link
Owner

@aelveborn aelveborn commented Jun 8, 2018

This will double the stress on the front-end as you mentioned. I remember doing tests on this since a too high speed would actually make the weighing slower and skip readings. But, since its on par with the readme I guess thats about the initial speed before the back-end change.

@aelveborn aelveborn merged commit 266c292 into aelveborn:master Jun 8, 2018
@ribbons ribbons deleted the 01-double-weighing-speed branch Jun 9, 2018
@ribbons
Copy link
Contributor Author

@ribbons ribbons commented Jun 9, 2018

Thanks @aelveborn

@mo-g mo-g mentioned this pull request Jul 12, 2018
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Linked issues

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

None yet

2 participants