forked from 42wim/matterbridge
-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 17
WIP: Asynchronous send #159
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
Open
selfhoster1312
wants to merge
8
commits into
matterbridge-org:master
Choose a base branch
from
selfhoster1312:asynchronous-send
base: master
Could not load branches
Branch not found: {{ refName }}
Loading
Could not load tags
Nothing to show
Loading
Are you sure you want to change the base?
Some commits from the old base branch may be removed from the timeline,
and old review comments may become outdated.
Open
Changes from all commits
Commits
Show all changes
8 commits
Select commit
Hold shift + click to select a range
c32d296
WIP
selfhoster1312 db3a11c
WIP: setup a channel to receive message acks
selfhoster1312 2ecd948
WIP: initial async message acks prototype
selfhoster1312 a0c0fc1
make linter happy
selfhoster1312 b4497fc
Add ID mapping on incoming messages
selfhoster1312 12260d2
Use typed ID as key in message mapping (unsure about method logic)
selfhoster1312 77f7a3f
remove Protocol from MessageSentID
selfhoster1312 cbc30a5
Public method goes before private method
selfhoster1312 File filter
Filter by extension
Conversations
Failed to load comments.
Loading
Jump to
Jump to file
Failed to load files.
Loading
Diff view
Diff view
There are no files selected for viewing
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Oops, something went wrong.
Oops, something went wrong.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
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.
We already have 'ID' here. Can we reuse it instead or is adding a new field fundamentally important?
This ID field currently holds the ID set by the receiving bridge, which leads to confusing ambiguities when tracing message flow because a
config.Messagewill say one ID on incoming and then say another on the outgoing side. It would be a lot easier to understand what was going on without that.The most difficult knot to untangle is how to associate the IDs tracked at the gateway with IDs tracked by each protocol. So I guess they do need to be associated; perhaps to make it clearer:
The ExternalIDs should not be controllable by the gateway, it's up to each bridge to pick them (or have them picked for them by the remote server and report that), so there shouldn't be any reason to pass them gateway -> bridge, so maybe don't associate them in the struct at all:
Instead Bridges can send
{ ExternalID string, rmsg config.Message }to the gateway's incoming chan inhandleMessagewhich then immediately generatesInternalID, and at the point it should initializeand on Acks we append to
gw.Messages[internalID]as you're doing below :)Uh oh!
There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.
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.
There seems to be a special case with the ID for
config.EventFileDeletebut i did not investigate further. Also i'm not sure how that would affect other parts of the codebase to remove this, but i think it's good to think about it! For example, i believe it would actually break the HTTP JSON API for 3rd party bridges outside of our codebase (since the ID is unmarshalled from JSON in that case and could not be passed as an argument)