Skip to content

Hide Assist on duplicate wake word received#6419

Merged
TimoPtr merged 3 commits intomainfrom
feature/hide_assist_on_duplicated_wake_word
Feb 11, 2026
Merged

Hide Assist on duplicate wake word received#6419
TimoPtr merged 3 commits intomainfrom
feature/hide_assist_on_duplicated_wake_word

Conversation

@TimoPtr
Copy link
Member

@TimoPtr TimoPtr commented Feb 10, 2026

Summary

In order to replicate the behavior of a VPE that when multiples pipeline starts with the same wake word only the first one is kept we need to check the error sent in the WebSocket. This PR does that.

It works by starting a pipeline and send the wake word phrase (introduced by #6376) then if the pipeline send an error with a specific code we simply stop the AssistActivity. To make the UX nicer I decided to delay a bit the display of the bottom sheet otherwise it was shown and hidden in less than a second. The counterpart is that the UI blinks a bit because of the activity overlay.

Checklist

  • New or updated tests have been added to cover the changes following the testing guidelines.
  • The code follows the project's code style and best_practices.
  • The changes have been thoroughly tested, and edge cases have been considered.
  • Changes are backward compatible whenever feasible. Any breaking changes are documented in the changelog for users and/or in the code for developers depending on the relevance.

Screenshots

Screen.Recording.2026-02-10.at.09.12.14.mov

@TimoPtr TimoPtr changed the title Hide Assist on duplicated wake word received Hide Assist on duplicate wake word received Feb 10, 2026
@TimoPtr TimoPtr requested a review from jpelgrom February 10, 2026 08:59
AssistPipelineEventType.STT_START -> handleSttStart()
AssistPipelineEventType.STT_START -> {
handleSttStart()
onEvent(AssistEvent.PipelineStarted)
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Maybe a bit theoretical, but what if I use the wake word and it triggers Assist with a pipeline without STT? Wouldn't it make more sense to link it to the RUN_START event?

Copy link
Member Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Indeed I was assuming there was always voice but I forget that you can have a pipeline without STT.

Copy link
Member Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

It actually quite complex. Since the pipeline only starts when using voice otherwise we wait for the user to send his input to trigger the pipeline. So this logic of canceling Assist won't work for text in its current state.

I'm checking if I can call the selected pipeline with only the wake word all the time when Assist start just to know if we can proceed or not, but I might just support voice by setting the pending boolean only when using microphone.

Copy link
Member Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

I decided to only support voice pipeline otherwise it asks for a quite big changes in the logic and I'm not even sure if we can do it properly.

@TimoPtr TimoPtr requested a review from jpelgrom February 11, 2026 08:46
@github-actions
Copy link
Contributor

github-actions bot commented Feb 11, 2026

Test Results

  160 files    160 suites   10m 14s ⏱️
1 225 tests 1 225 ✅ 0 💤 0 ❌
1 264 runs  1 258 ✅ 6 💤 0 ❌

Results for commit ed73b72.

♻️ This comment has been updated with latest results.

@TimoPtr TimoPtr enabled auto-merge (squash) February 11, 2026 11:06
@TimoPtr TimoPtr disabled auto-merge February 11, 2026 11:47
@TimoPtr TimoPtr merged commit 924adf0 into main Feb 11, 2026
22 of 23 checks passed
@TimoPtr TimoPtr deleted the feature/hide_assist_on_duplicated_wake_word branch February 11, 2026 11:48
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Projects

None yet

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

2 participants