I'm trying to implement an handler for the query request
It's not clear to me what should be returned in case I'm not able to return the status of a device.
In particular I would like to understand how to reply if one of the devices in the query request is no more controlled/owned by the user.
Should I reply with an error response even if only one device of the query request is no more available? Or should I have to report anyway the state of the rest of the devices?
If there is an error in a specific device, you should return an errorCode as one of the properties in the response for that device. Alternatively, you can return online: false.
If you know that the device no longer exists, you may want to also run a REQUEST_SYNC call to refresh the user's devices.
Example:
{
"requestId": "ff36a3cc-ec34-11e6-b1a0-64510650abcf",
"payload": {
"devices": {
"123": {
"errorCode": "deviceNotFound"
}
}
}
}
Related
Intro:
was created a Google Smart Home project
was configured a proxy server via ngrok to redirect the Google request to my local machine
I develop an IoT project that has the ability to open/close a lock. I need to implement Google integration to use the Google Assistant to control the user locks. I have implemented OAuth Server for Google. Also I have implemented some controllers to handle Google Action Intents: SYNC, QUERY and EXECUTE. Google send a request with the SYNC intent and App response a payload that contain devices list with specific settings. Instance:
{
requestId: 'requestIdOfGoogle', // contains in the request body
payload: {
agentUserId: 'userId123', // matches user id inside app system
devices: [
{
id: 1,
type: 'action.devices.types.LOCK', // device type
traits: ['action.devices.traits.LockUnlock'], // feature that has a device
name: {
name: 'Kos Lock'
},
willReportState: true,
roomHint: 'Main Door',
deviceInfo: { // Test data
manufacturer: 'smart-home-inc',
model: 'hs1234',
hwVersion: '3.2',
swVersion: '11.4'
}
}
]
}
}
Then Google send requests to my server with QUERY intent to get info about state of a devices, instance
{
requestId: 'requestIdOfGoogle', // contains in the request body
payload: {
devices: {
1: {
status: 'SUCCESS',
online: true,
isLocked: true,
// isJammed - Boolean. Whether the device is currently jammed and therefore its
// locked state cannot be determined.
isJammed: false
}
}
}
}
But after sending a response a test lock isn't configured and a user can't control one with Google Assistant.
enter image description here
I have tried to add other traits for a lock but it didn't help me. Also I have the same problem when I try to configure a Door device. But when I send to Google a Light device it works successfully. When you use the LockUnlock trait then Google Doc recommends to setup secondary user verification but it's optional.
I don't understand that do incorrect. If someone faced such a problem and solved it then could you help me, please
Prerequisites:
use node ^14.0.0
programming language - js
Touch controls are not supported for every device, and locks are not a device type that can be controlled directly. But they will still respond to voice commands.
I'm fairly new to iOS/Swift development and I'm working on an app that makes several requests to a REST API. Here's a sample of one of those calls which retrieves "messages":
func getMessages() {
let endpoint = "/api/outgoingMessages"
let parameters: [String: Any] = [
"limit" : 100,
"sortOrder" : "ASC"
]
guard let url = createURLWithComponents(endpoint: endpoint, parameters: parameters) else {
print("Failed to create URL!")
return
}
do {
var request = try URLRequest(url: url, method: .get)
let task = URLSession.shared.dataTask(with: request as URLRequest) { (data, response, error) in
if let error = error {
print("Request failed with error: \(error)")
// TODO: retry failed request
} else if let data = data, let response = response as? HTTPURLResponse {
if response.statusCode == 200 {
// process data here
} else {
// TODO: retry failed request
}
}
}
task.resume()
} catch {
print("Failed to construct URL: \(error)")
}
}
Of course, it's possible for this request to fail for a number of different reasons (server is unreachable, request timed out, server returns something other than 200, etc). If my request fails, I'd like to have the ability to retry it, perhaps even with a delay before the next attempt. I didn't see any guidance on this scenario in Apple's documentation but I found a couple of related discussions on SO. Unfortunately, both of those were a few years old and in Objective-C which I've never worked with. Are there any common patterns or implementations for doing something like this in Swift?
This question is airing on the side of opinion-based, and is rather broad, but I bet most are similar, so here goes.
For data updates that trigger UI changes:
(e.g. a table populated with data, or images loading) the general rule of thumb is to notify the user in a non-obstructing way, like so:
And then have a pull-to-refresh control or a refresh button.
For background data updates that don't impact the user's actions or behavior:
You could easily add a retry counter into your request result depending on the code - but I'd be careful with this one and build out some more intelligent logic. For example, given the following status codes, you might want to handle things differently:
5xx: Something is wrong with your server. You may want to delay the retry for 30s or a minute, but if it happens 3 or 4 times, you're going to want to stop hammering your back end.
401: The authenticated user may no longer be authorized to call your API. You're not going to want to retry this at all; instead, you'd probably want to log the user out so the next time they use your app they're prompted to re-authenticate.
Network time-out/lost connection: Retrying is irrelevant until connection is re-established. You could write some logic around your reachability handler to queue background requests for actioning the next time network connectivity is available.
And finally, as we touched on in the comments, you might want to look at notification-driven background app refreshing. This is where instead of polling your server for changes, you can send a notification to tell the app to update itself even when it's not running in the foreground. If you're clever enough, you can have your server repeat notifications to your app until the app has confirmed receipt - this solves for connectivity failures and a myriad of other server response error codes in a consistent way.
I'd categorize three methods for handling retry:
Reachability Retry
Reachability is a fancy way of saying "let me know when network connection has changed". Apple has some snippets for this, but they aren't fun to look at — my recommendation is to use something like Ashley Mill's Reachability replacement.
In addition to Reachability, Apple provides a waitsForConnectivity (iOS 11+) property that you can set on the URLSession configuration. By setting it, you are alerted via the URLSessionDataDelegate when a task is waiting for a network connection. You could use that opportunity to enable an offline mode or display something to the user.
Manual Retry
Let the user decide when to retry the request. I'd say this is most commonly implemented using a "pull to refresh" gesture/UI.
Timed/Auto Retry
Wait for a few second and try again.
Apple's Combine framework provides a convenient way to retry failed network requests. See Processing URL Session Data Task Results with Combine
From Apple Docs: Life Cycle of a URL Session (deprecated)... your app should not retry [a request] immediately, however. Instead, it should use reachability APIs to determine whether the server is reachable, and should make a new request only when it receives a notification that reachability has changed.
On Swift, I use
socket.on("test") {data, ack in
print(data)
}
In order to subscribe to a room (socket) on my Sails.js API.
When I broadcast a message from the server, with
sails.sockets.broadcast('test', { text : 'ok' })
the socket.on handler is never called.
However, if I set "log" TRUE to config when connecting my socket.io client from swift, in Socket-IO logs the message arrives.
What's wrong?
Eventually, I found my mistake:
The whole process I did is right:
(The request to join the room is done by the server, with sails.sockets.join)
Wrong thing was using socket.on with the ROOM NAME parameter.
I will explain it better, for others having same problem:
From Swift you should subscribe by making a websocket request to an endpoint on the server that accepts websocket requests (GET, POST, PUT). For example, you can make a POST request, passing in the room name into the body.
socket.emitWithAck("post", [
"room": "testroom",
"url": "/api/v1.0/roomsubscribing"
]).timingOut(after: 0) {data in
print("Server responded with \(data)")
}
On server side, inside the room-subscribing endpoint, you should have the following code:
roomSubscribing: function(req, res) {
if (!req.isSocket) {
return res.badRequest();
}
sails.sockets.join(req, req.params('room'), function(err) {
if (err) {
return res.serverError(err);
}
});
}
When the server want to broadcast some data to subscribers of the "testroom" room, the following code must be used:
sails.sockets.broadcast('testroom', { message: 'testmessage' }
Now on the swift's side you must use:
socket.on("message") { data, ack in
print(data)
}
in order to get the message handler to work. I thought you should use room name, instead you should use the KEY of the KEY/VALUE entry you used in your server when you broadcasted the data (in this case, "message").
I only have a small amount of experience with sockets, but in case nobody else answers...
I think you are missing step one of the three step socket process:
A client sends a message to the server asking to subscribe to a particular room.
The client sets up a socket.on to handle particular events from that room.
The server broadcasts an event in a particular room. All subscribers/clients with a .on for that particular event will react.
I could be wrong, but it sounds from your description like you missed step one. Your client has to send a message with io.socket, something like here, then your server has to use the socket request to have them join the room, something like in the example here.
(the presence of log data without the socket.on firing would seem to confirm that the event was broadcast in the room, but that client was not subscribed)
Good luck!
We're trying to find a way to detect revoked permissions through Google APIs without continuously polling the provider to get status updates. Does Google have any sort of notification system for this (a webhook, etc)?
The most recent post I found regarding this was over 2 years ago.
Look here and search for Check For Permissions
Android Permissions
// Here, thisActivity is the current activity
if (ContextCompat.checkSelfPermission(thisActivity,
Manifest.permission.READ_CONTACTS)
!= PackageManager.PERMISSION_GRANTED) {
// Should we show an explanation?
if (ActivityCompat.shouldShowRequestPermissionRationale(thisActivity,
Manifest.permission.READ_CONTACTS)) {
// Show an expanation to the user *asynchronously* -- don't block
// this thread waiting for the user's response! After the user
// sees the explanation, try again to request the permission.
} else {
// No explanation needed, we can request the permission.
ActivityCompat.requestPermissions(thisActivity,
new String[]{Manifest.permission.READ_CONTACTS},
MY_PERMISSIONS_REQUEST_READ_CONTACTS);
// MY_PERMISSIONS_REQUEST_READ_CONTACTS is an
// app-defined int constant. The callback method gets the
// result of the request.
}
}
I am writing an ios app that relies on being able to tell when a user is connected to wifi and, when he or she connects or disconnects, send an asynchronous request using alamo fire.
The first time I connect, my asynchronous succeeds.
However, after I first connect, any toggling of the wifi results in 404s.
I suspect this is because I am sending the request as soon as the user connects/disconnects, meaning that for a brief moment he or she has no internet service.
My question is, can I repeat the request if it fails or is it possible to "cache" the requests I want to make and wait until the user has internet connection to make them?
There are many solutions to solve this. One is to call the download method recursively again and so implementing an automatic retry mechanism on errors:
func downloadSomething() {
Alamofire.request(.GET, "https://httpbin.org/get", parameters: ["foo": "bar"])
.response { request, response, data, error in
if let error = error {
log(error)
self.downloadSomething() // recursive call to downloadSomething
} else {
// do something on success
}
}
}
You can extend this by:
showing the user also an altert view asking him if he want's to retry
the download or not before retrying the download. (depending on your
UI strategy on network errors)
a specified count of automatic re-trys and then ask the user.
checking the error status code and then depending on the code do
different network error handling strategies...
etc...
I think there is no needed to re-invented apple code like reachability or this swift reachability porting. You can able to check if a user is connected to the net or wifi very easily:
class func hasConnectivity() -> Bool {
let reachability: Reachability = Reachability.reachabilityForInternetConnection()
let networkStatus: Int = reachability.currentReachabilityStatus().rawValue
return networkStatus != 0
}
For a Wi-Fi connection:
(reachability.currentReachabilityStatus().value == ReachableViaWiFi.value)