Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Multiple Discord API connections opened when using multiple IRC connections with same bot #49

Open
Phoenix616 opened this issue Dec 18, 2020 · 1 comment
Labels
priority: normal Issue has normal priority for resolution type: feature New feature or request
Milestone

Comments

@Phoenix616
Copy link
Contributor

When having the bridge connect with multiple different IRC connections that use the same Discord bot endpoint it still tries to create a connection to the Discord API for both bridges instead of just once resulting in it being ratelimited on first connect:

[17:34:07] [phoenix616] [INFO] - Connecting to Discord API...
[17:34:08] [net.dv8tion.jda.api.JDA] [INFO] - Login Successful!
[17:34:08] [net.dv8tion.jda.internal.requests.WebSocketClient] [INFO] - Connected to WebSocket
[17:34:12] [net.dv8tion.jda.internal.requests.WebSocketClient] [ERROR] - Encountered IDENTIFY Rate Limit!
[17:34:12] [net.dv8tion.jda.internal.requests.WebSocketClient] [WARN] - Got disconnected from WebSocket (Code 1000). Appending to reconnect queue
[17:34:19] [net.dv8tion.jda.internal.requests.WebSocketClient] [INFO] - Connected to WebSocket
[17:34:19] [net.dv8tion.jda.api.JDA] [INFO] - Finished Loading!
@Phoenix616 Phoenix616 changed the title Multiple Discord API connections opened when using multiple IRC connections Multiple Discord API connections opened when using multiple IRC connections with same bot Dec 18, 2020
@zachbr
Copy link
Owner

zachbr commented Dec 18, 2020

This is kind of a bug and a kind of a feature request. The bridge was never designed to support this.
It was very intentional that everything is separate and resources like this not be shared.

It has caused issues with some use cases but never enough to warrant changing properly.
This is likely a version 2.0 type request but I am willing to consider it as it has come up in the past.

@zachbr zachbr added this to the 2.0.0 milestone Dec 18, 2020
@zachbr zachbr added type: feature New feature or request priority: normal Issue has normal priority for resolution labels Dec 18, 2020
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
priority: normal Issue has normal priority for resolution type: feature New feature or request
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

2 participants