L2l #1
L2l #1
Conversation
… clients are added correctly
…ee how many channels it is still in
…r status before killing it
…l is brought online
…master with unit tests
| if (typeof senderRecvrA[onReceivedMethodA] !== "function") throw new Error(`sender a has no receive method ${onReceivedMethodA}!`); | ||
| if (typeof senderRecvrB[onReceivedMethodB] !== "function") throw new Error(`sender b has no receive method ${onReceivedMethodB}!`); | ||
| this.senderRecvrA = senderRecvrA; | ||
| this.senderRecvrA.l2lclient ? {} : this.senderRecvrA.l2lclient = Channel.makeL2LClient() |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
What is this structure? Why not simply an if instead of a tertiary with an emtpy object?
| import L2LClient from "lively.2lively/client.js"; | ||
| import { string, num, promise, fun } from "lively.lang"; | ||
|
|
||
| export class Channel { |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Is there a reason to copy the channel implementation from channel.js? Does subclassing work? Or just configuring the original channel with a variable backend? (l2l vs local)
| async getSessions(senderA,senderB,ackFn){ | ||
| var l2lA = senderA.l2lclient, | ||
| l2lB = senderB.l2lclient | ||
| var returnVal = 'incomplete'; |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
What is returnVal? It is never used?
| } | ||
|
|
||
| async getSessions(senderA,senderB,ackFn){ | ||
| var l2lA = senderA.l2lclient, |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
you define l2lA but it is never used?
| console.log('senderRecvrB not disconnected'); | ||
| } | ||
| }) | ||
| } |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Shouldn't the procedure for cleaning up l2lA and l2lB be the same? it seems strange that you have to query for getSessions to disconnect b?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
That's because I need to make sure it's the last thing in the room before it disconnects, since it's the master.
| } | ||
|
|
||
| if (this.senderRecvrB && this.senderRecvrB.l2lclient) { | ||
| this.getSessions(this.senderRecvrA,this.senderRecvrB,(a)=> { |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Please use async/awai as much as possible. It makes code much more readable than callback style
|
|
||
| l2lA.sendTo(l2lA.trackerId,'joinRoom',{roomName: l2lB.socketId.split('#')[1]}) | ||
| l2lB.sendTo(l2lB.trackerId,'joinRoom',{roomName: l2lB.socketId.split('#')[1]}) | ||
| this.online = true; |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Do we need to wait for acknowledgment for joining the rooms to be sure we are really only? In other words, what happens when joinRoom fails? I cannot find error handling somewhere
| send(content, sender) { | ||
|
|
||
|
|
||
| return this.deliver(sender); |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
"deliver" was used in the local channel to implement the details of send, here it is empty so a send actually does nothing?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I had just emptied it with the intention of filling it with code particular to the l2l version, so this should be resolved with inheritance now
| await testChannel.senderRecvrA.l2lclient.whenRegistered(300) | ||
| await testChannel.senderRecvrB.l2lclient.whenRegistered(300) | ||
|
|
||
| window.testChannel = testChannel; |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Can you clean up debug code? Leaving globals and such around might lead to strange effects
| expect(masterBuffer[0].payload).equals(ack,'payload not correct') | ||
| }) | ||
|
|
||
| }) |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
None of those tests actually runs lively.sync. How would the tests ""messaging between master and client - single op" and "syncing master with two clients - simple prop" look like when using l2l?
…e goOnline method
…t behavior with l2lchannel
…or synchronous checking
L2L Channel Framework in place. Send/Receive now register and need to be tied to the channel send/receive methods.