Added authorizeForward

[stochris]

Hello. I've added the method we talked about. However, I'm not very sure about the arguments of the callback. Right now, it only looks at err, the rest being modified on the original object.

I did see a slight drop in perfomance, about 2-5% after adding the method, without supplying anything custom in the config.

[coveralls]

Coverage decreased (-0.3%) to 96.474% when pulling 3b56e00 on stoiKris:master into 4394240 on mcollina:master.

[stochris]

Uhm, seems I didn't cover all my bases in the unit test. I could look into it a bit more if that's a problem

[mcollina]

A bad design decision I did in Mosca is making that function async. That
function needs to be synchronous, otherwise performance will be extremely
affected.

Would you mind making it sync?
Il giorno mar 26 apr 2016 alle 20:39 stoiKris notifications@github.com ha
scritto:

Uhm, seems I didn't cover all my bases in the unit test. I could look into
it a bit more if that's a problem

—
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub
#44 (comment)

[cristian-stoicescu]

I thought it was strange the performance dropped after I added the callback.
Btw, in your opinion, should the function also return the package and client, or just modify it's parameters, and only return the error?
I'm thinking an elegant way would be to return undefined if there was an error else return the client and the packet.
What do you think?

[mcollina]

@cristian-stoicescu just return the packet, so the function can overwrite anything.

BTW, authorizeForward needs to be called only if it's a publish for QoS 1/2. Moreover you will need to call persistence.outgoingClearMessageId to remove the packet if the authorization is denied, if the client is not clean.

I know it's a lot of work for this feature, thanks for helping out!

[coveralls]

Coverage increased (+0.04%) to 96.785% when pulling 159f8d3 on stoiKris:master into 4394240 on mcollina:master.

[mcollina]

don't allocate a function here.

[mcollina]

just check if (!_authPacket)

[coveralls]

Coverage increased (+0.04%) to 96.785% when pulling 75a9351 on stoiKris:master into 4394240 on mcollina:master.

[coveralls]

Coverage increased (+0.04%) to 96.785% when pulling aea9ddf on stoiKris:master into 4394240 on mcollina:master.

[stochris]

Sorry for the tons of commits, github has a habit of hiding "outdated" comments, so I see them too late

[coveralls]

Coverage increased (+0.04%) to 96.785% when pulling 85da282 on stoiKris:master into 4394240 on mcollina:master.

[coveralls]

Coverage increased (+0.04%) to 96.785% when pulling 804af2a on stoiKris:master into 4394240 on mcollina:master.

[coveralls]

Coverage increased (+0.05%) to 96.8% when pulling d035c57 on stoiKris:master into 4394240 on mcollina:master.

[mcollina]

Actually no, there is no need to check, those methods are only used for
publishes :/. Sorry
Il giorno mer 27 apr 2016 alle 13:32 Coveralls notifications@github.com
ha scritto:

[image: Coverage Status] https://coveralls.io/builds/5951593

Coverage increased (+0.05%) to 96.8% when pulling d035c57
d035c57
on stoiKris:master into 4394240
4394240
on mcollina:master.

—
You are receiving this because you commented.

Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub
#44 (comment)

[coveralls]

Coverage increased (+0.04%) to 96.79% when pulling 7cba817 on stoiKris:master into 4394240 on mcollina:master.

[mcollina]

You need to do the same for the other deliver method, as one is used for QoS 0 and one for QoS 1/2.

[stochris]

Didn't you say earlier that the authorizeForward needs to be called only if it's a publish for QoS 1/2 ?

I'm confused

p.s.: sorry, closed by mistake

[coveralls]

Coverage increased (+0.04%) to 96.79% when pulling 7cba817 on stoiKris:master into 4394240 on mcollina:master.