Better connection

[carlocorradini]

Fix #11

[carlocorradini]

@karljj1 The goal of this PR is to improve connection by providing a better connection class and a connection builder:

• IPv4 and IPv6 support
• Receive and Send network interface by name (e.g. eth0) or by address (e.g. 192.168.0.100)
• ... More!

[karljj1]

Looks like there's some test failures.

[carlocorradini]

Yes, it's only a starting point ☝️

[carlocorradini]

@karljj1 See net_interface and ip_address examples.
These classes will be used as the basis.
Let me know what you think

[karljj1]

Looks good :)

[codecov-commenter]

Welcome to Codecov 🎉

Once merged to your default branch, Codecov will compare your coverage reports and display the results in this comment.

Thanks for integrating Codecov - We've got you covered ☂️

[carlocorradini]

@karljj1 Can you help me refactor Connection class? Thanks 🥳

[karljj1]

Sure. What are you thinking?

[carlocorradini]

There is the need to rewrite the connection class:

• Use new IPAddress class
• Use new NetworkInterface class
• Use new Util::Error class instead of checking the error code (and test error) manually
• Replace old/deprecated structures

PS: Any idea how to integrate connection builder class with connection class?

[karljj1]

There is the need to rewrite the connection class:

• Use new IPAddress class
• Use new NetworkInterface class
• Use new Util::Error class instead of checking the error code (and test error) manually
• Replace old/deprecated structures

PS: Any idea how to integrate connection builder class with connection class?

Hey sorry, not had a chance to look at this yet. Im going to be away for most of December but ill take a look in January.

[carlocorradini]

@karljj1 Any update? 🥳

[karljj1]

Sorry it's been a busy year. I don't really have any strong feelings about this. The connection class was always supposed to be something simple to get you started. If you need something more advanced it's probably better to use an existing open source network library. Maybe we could integrate one as an optional feature if someone needs something more advanced?