Refactor wled-tools discover_devices for deduplication and clarity

[LordMike]

I've discovered that when we have multiple network interfaces, possible on different VLANs, which see the same mDNS entries, avahi will emit multiple entries (since it also keys on interface).

This change will make awk deduplicate, by only emitting unique name/ip/port pairs.

Summary by CodeRabbit

• Bug Fixes
  • Device discovery now removes duplicate entries so each discovered device appears only once in scan results.
  • Discovery output remains compatible with existing parsing — format and emitted triplets are preserved to avoid breaking downstream consumers.

[coderabbitai]

No actionable comments were generated in the recent review. 🎉

ℹ️ Recent review info

⚙️ Run configuration

Configuration used: Path: .coderabbit.yaml

Review profile: CHILL

Plan: Pro

Run ID: 1e5ddcc6-28c5-4b74-a702-945d82c624e2

📥 Commits

Reviewing files that changed from the base of the PR and between a51aec6 and 97dacb6.

📒 Files selected for processing (1)

• tools/wled-tools

---

Walkthrough

discover_devices() in tools/wled-tools now deduplicates mDNS discovery output by emitting only the first occurrence of each hostname\x1Faddress\x1Fport tuple; the output format and downstream parsing contract are unchanged.

Changes

Cohort / File(s)	Summary
mDNS Device Discovery Deduplication tools/wled-tools	discover_devices() updated to deduplicate avahi-browse results via an awk seen-map keyed by hostname\x1Faddress\x1Fport; only the first matching entry is printed, preserving the existing hostname\x1Faddress\x1Fport output format.

Estimated code review effort

🎯 3 (Moderate) | ⏱️ ~20 minutes

🚥 Pre-merge checks | ✅ 3

✅ Passed checks (3 passed)

Check name	Status	Explanation
Description Check	✅ Passed	Check skipped - CodeRabbit’s high-level summary is enabled.
Title check	✅ Passed	The title accurately describes the main change: refactoring discover_devices for deduplication and clarity, which matches the PR's core objective of deduplicating mDNS entries.
Docstring Coverage	✅ Passed	No functions found in the changed files to evaluate docstring coverage. Skipping docstring coverage check.

_{✏️ Tip: You can configure your own custom pre-merge checks in the settings.}

✨ Finishing Touches

🧪 Generate unit tests (beta)

• Create PR with unit tests

---

Thanks for using CodeRabbit! It's free for OSS, and your support helps us grow. If you like it, consider giving us a shout-out.

❤️ Share

• X
• Mastodon
• Reddit
• LinkedIn

_{Comment @coderabbitai help to get the list of available commands and usage tips.}

[LordMike]

I am unsure why the original wled-tools has so many spaces after each line.. it makes the diff weird.

[softhack007]

I am unsure why the original wled-tools has so many spaces after each line.. it makes the diff weird.

@LordMike yeah probably the reason is "it doesn't matter". Normally we recommend "don't try to optimize out trailing whitespaces". As you say, it makes the diff hard to read and it makes cherry-picking between branches a nightmare.

If you have any VSCode add-on that "optimizes" out trailing spaces, just remove them. Also don't use clang-format on the complete file before committing a PR.

[LordMike]

I cleaned it up

[softhack007]

I cleaned it up

Thanks, that's much clearer 👍

[softhack007]

looks fine for me.
I can't test it, but the only functional difference is print key => if (!seen[key]++) print key. everything else is just styling.