-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 81
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
Add ability to handle events that expect an ack #463
base: main
Are you sure you want to change the base?
Conversation
I didn't add any tests because I didn't have the time to do it yet. But I've tested locally with my usecase and it seems to work |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
suggestion: rename added internal functions to ..._with_awk (rather than having _no_awk variants)
suggestion: add tests so the feature continues to be tested and working
after that it looks good
socketio/src/packet.rs
Outdated
@@ -25,7 +25,7 @@ pub struct Packet { | |||
pub packet_type: PacketId, | |||
pub nsp: String, | |||
pub data: Option<String>, | |||
pub id: Option<i32>, | |||
pub id: Option<AckId>, |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
While I'm generally a fan of wrapper types, it's not worth the breaking API change.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
the reason I put this in is just so you can't make a mistake when calling ack
on the client. Since you're not supposed to care what the ack id is I think this is a good change and it's better to make this change sooner rather than later. If you still disagree I can drop it
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
I agree it's a reasonable change, but it would need to be made (and merged) separately.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
I also agree that this is a reasonable change, but please factor It out in separate commit / PR. This breaks existing users that depend on an i32
in this place and we cannot just ignore that. That being said, thanks for spotting this appropriately :)
I could not figure out how to run the |
b5935fb
to
034578f
Compare
agreed, that target is a little lacking. You need to start up the test containers beforehand as seen in the ci: https://github.com/1c3t3a/rust-socketio/blob/2ef32ecbe053d100e350c4d77a71dd1cab19471e/.github/workflows/test.yml#L36C11-L37C133, speaking of which I'll turn that on for you (it'll run on every push if you can't get it running locally) |
034578f
to
a290bc2
Compare
a290bc2
to
e69af99
Compare
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
First of all, sorry for the late response.
Thanks a lot for working on this, it generally LGTM!
Regarding the tests: It'd be great to have them and I improved the make test-all
target in #477.
Would be amazing if you could add the tests and split the AckId change out, then we're ready to merge this!
e69af99
to
a4e5287
Compare
Wtf github? I didn't close this 🤔 maybe it got confused when I was syncing my fork |
55d1a0f
to
8526e48
Compare
I have removed the ack id commit and will make a separate PR for it later. I've run the |
This adds three new methods to the API surface
[Raw]Client::ack(AckId, D)
ClientBuilder::on_with_ack(Event, callback)
ClientBuilder::on_any_with_ack(Event, callback)
using these it's possible to receive messages that require ack and acknowledge them
Fixes #461