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

Updated DataIo Template (And working on the Siemens S7 L-types as well as Temporal types) #1376

Merged
merged 22 commits into from Feb 6, 2024

Conversation

chrisdutz
Copy link
Contributor

@chrisdutz chrisdutz commented Feb 1, 2024

Please review especially the changes to generated DataIo types ... I know that at least in the Can driver I could see that now the encoding seems to be passed to the parser (which previously was not)

fixes #1379

@chrisdutz chrisdutz requested review from sruehl, splatch, hutcheb, cwlls and glcj and removed request for cwlls February 1, 2024 15:53
@chrisdutz chrisdutz requested a review from sruehl February 4, 2024 10:01
@@ -71,12 +71,22 @@ public void onConnect(ConversationContext<FirmataMessage> context) {
LOGGER.debug("Sending Firmata Reset Command");
FirmataMessageCommand resetCommandMessage = new FirmataMessageCommand(new FirmataCommandSystemReset());
context.sendRequest(resetCommandMessage)
.onTimeout(e -> {
LOGGER.info("Timeout during Connection establishment, closing channel...");
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

is the closing implicit or is there missing a close call here?

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Öhm ... from where I copied it from, it was commented out ;-)

Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Maybe @splatch added that? :D. Anyway maybe it is better to name it channel will be closed as there is no immediate close call there.

Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

The onTimeout is not propagated well across stack, from what I remember in the past onTimeout had to specified at first, otherwise it was ignored/swallowed by lower part of engine. Not sure if that's true nowadays.

only combines those 2 and makes the code a bit more readable
@chrisdutz
Copy link
Contributor Author

Ok ... pulled in all changes from develop ... time to merge

@chrisdutz chrisdutz merged commit a7310e3 into develop Feb 6, 2024
35 checks passed
@chrisdutz chrisdutz deleted the fix/DATE_AND_TIME_2 branch February 6, 2024 08:36
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

[Task]: Refactor usage of ".check(p -> p instanceof SomeClass)" to ".only(SomeClass.class)"
4 participants