Partially harmonize light/sensor selection logic #4961
Conversation
de_web_plugin.cpp
Outdated
| return &(*i); | ||
| } | ||
| } | ||
| if (sensor.deletedState() != Sensor::StateNormal || !sensor.node()) { continue; } |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
The !sensor.node() check is good intention but this would break at least ZGP devices and Sensors where the deCONZ::Node hasn't been assigned yet. Albeit I'd prefer to have this check here the current code base is more structured to have the node() check outside this function.
de_web_plugin.cpp
Outdated
| if (!isSameAddress(sensor.address(), addr)) { continue; } | ||
| if (sensor.type() != type) { continue; } |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Considering this function is called often I'd suggest to switch these two lines to get a bit more performance.
|
Just checked the ZGP code, in the button handler the deconz-rest-plugin/de_web_plugin.cpp Lines 1442 to 1445 in 4eed6b1 If the |
|
Tested with Friends of Hue switch, all good 👍 |
2 participants
With introduction of
isSameAddress(), a consistent address comparison became availble. Currently, quite a few functions to select alight/sensor have a similar code implemented which varies in some details.With this PR, the address comparision gets streamlined for the functions
getLightNodeForAddress(),getSensorNodeForAddress(),getSensorNodeForAddressAndEndpoint()andgetSensorNodeForAddressAndEndpoint()while sparing a few lines of code