Testing for off-line in a Worklight app - geolocation

What is the best way to test if a Worklight app is off-line?
After I use the WL.Device.startAcquisition( ... ) api to start stuff off, I am currently using:
WL.Device.Geo.acquirePosition(function(pos) {
console.log("***** Aquired position ***** " + JSON.stringify(pos));
}, function(error) {
console.log(JSON.stringify("***** Unable to aquire position ***** " + error.code + ' : ' + error.message));
// call method to asynchronously - periodicallyCheckIfOnline( ... );
}, {timeout: 5000});
And if I determine that I am offline, I then use the watchPosition api to periodically test for a new connection.
navHandle = navigator.geolocation.watchPosition(onSuccess, onError, { timeout: 5000 });
Once I get the connection back I then clear the watch.
navigator.geolocation.clearWatch(navHandle);
Is this the best way of doing it or are there better Worklight APIs to use for this.
Note: I am trying to test this in a Mobile Browser Simulator scenario hence the short timeouts.

On startup, use something like
WL.Client.connect({onSuccess:onConnectSuccess,onFailure:onConnectFailure,timeout:number_of_ms});
to check if you have initial connectivity.
To detect any further changes in connectivity, you can use the
WL.Client.setHeartBeatInterval(number_of_s) API.
This will 'ping' the worklight server every number_of_s seconds and fire the WL.Events.WORKLIGHT_IS_DISCONNECTED and WL.Events.WORKLIGHT_IS_CONNECTED events, to which you attach callbacks to as described in the reading-worthy tutorial linked to by #Leandro David.
NOTE : if you need to use network to transfer heavy data, do a double check : once you know you have connectivity to the worklight server, use the WL.Device.getNetworkInfo API to check the connection quality before sending/receiving data.

There is a tutorial about dealing with online/offline mode in the worklight geting started material ("Working Offline" link):
http://www.ibm.com/developerworks/mobile/worklight/getting-started.html#GS_work_offline
It tells the best way to use Worklight API to deal with online/offline connection
To summarize, I believe this is the most important part:
Active detection of connectivity
Connectivity loss can be detected in two locations in your application code:
– Application initialization – WL.Client.init() method, typically called from initOptions.js file
– Adapter procedure invocation – WL.Client.invokeProcedure() method
-To add connectivity failure detection in either location, add the onConnectionFailure property and specify a callback function to be invoked if connectivity fails
var wlInitOptions = {
onConnectionFailure: function (data){
connectionFailure(data);
},
or
WL.Client.invokeProcedure(invocationData, {
onSuccess: successHandlerFunction,
onConnectionFailure: connectionFailure,
timeout: 1000
});
Passive detection – Offline and online events
Each time the Worklight framework attempts to access the Worklight Server, it might detect that the application switched from offline to online status or vice versa.
In both cases, JavaScript events are fired:
– WL.Events.WORKLIGHT_IS_DISCONNECTED event is fired when connectivity to the Worklight Server fails
– WL.Events.WORKLIGHT_IS_CONNECTED event is fired when connectivity to the Worklight Server is restored
You can add event listeners to these events and specify the callback functions to handle them.
document.addEventListener(WL.Events.WORKLIGHT_IS_CONNECTED, connectDetected, false);
document.addEventListener(WL.Events.WORKLIGHT_IS_DISCONNECTED, disconnectDetected, false);
Note: WL.Events.WORKLIGHT_IS_DISCONNECTED and WL.Events.WORKLIGHT_IS_CONNECTED are namespace constants, not strings
There are more details available in the tutorial above

Related

Google Home. Problem regarding configure a Lock device

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.

Managing Server Side Events with a Service Worker

I am building a web app to display on my iPad to control my raspberry pi acting as an audio recorder. Part of the need is to maintain an event source open so that the server can send Server Side Events. A specific instance of the app can grab control of the recording process, but will loose control if the server sees sse link closes. This is just protection against a client disappearing and leaving the control held (control of the process does needed to be renewed at least every 5 minutes - but I don't really want to wait that long in the normal case of someone just closing the browser tab.)
Part of my need is to push the browser to the background so I can then open up the camera and record a video.
I built this app and had it almost working see https://github.com/akc42/pi_record.git (master branch).
Until I pushed the browser to the background and found IOS shut down the page and broke the sse link.
I tried restructuring to use a private web worker to manage the sse link, massing messages between the web worker and the main javascript thread - again almost working (see workers branch of above repository). But that got shutdown too!
My last thought is to use a service worker, but how to structure the app?
Clearly the service worker must act as a client to the server for the server side events. It must keep the connection open, but it also needs to keep track of multiple tabs in the browser which may or may not try and grab control of the interface, and only allow one tab to do so.
I can think of three approaches - but its difficult to see which is better. At least I have never even seen any mention of approach 2 and 3 below , but it seems to me that one of these two might actually be the simplest.
Approach 1
Move the code I have now for separate web workers into the service worker. However we will need to add to the message passing some form of ID between window and service. So I can record which tab actually grabbed control of the interface and therefore exclude other tabs from doing so (ie simulate a failed attempt to take control).
As far as I can work out MessageEvent.ports[0] could be a unique object which I could store in a Map somewhere, but I am not entirely convinced that the MessageChannel wouldn't close if the browser moved to the background.
Approach 2
have a set of phantom urls in the service worker that simulate all the different message types (and parameters) that where previously sent my the tab to its private web worker.
The fetch event provides a clientid (which I can use to difference between who actually grabbed control) and which I can use to then do Clients.get(clientid).postMessage() (or Clients.matchAll when a broadcast response is needed)
Code would be something like
self.addEventListener('fetch', (event) => {
const requestURL = new URL(event.request.url);
if (/^\/api\//.test(requestURL.pathname)) {
event.respondWith(fetch(event.request)); //all api requests are a direct pass through
} else if (/^\/service\//.test(requestURL.pathname)) {
/*
process these like a message passing with one extra to say the client is going away.
*/
if (urlRecognised) {
event.respondWith(new Response('OK', {status: 200}));
} else {
event.respondWith(new Response(`Unknown request ${requestURL.pathname}`, {status: 404}));
}
} else {
event.respondWith(async () => {
const cache = await caches.open('recorder');
const cachedResponse = await cache.match(event.request);
const networkResponsePromise = fetch(event.request);
event.waitUntil(async () => {
const networkResponse = await networkResponsePromise;
await cache.put(event.request, networkResponse.clone());
});
// Returned the cached response if we have one, otherwise return the network response.
return cachedResponse || networkResponsePromise;
});
}
});
The top of the the fetch event just passes the standard api requests made by the client straight through. I can't cache these (although I could be more sophisticated and perhaps pre reject those not supported).
The second section matches phantom urls /service/something
The last section is taken from Jake Archibald's offline cookbook and tries to use the cache, but updates the cache in the background if any of the static files have changed.
Approach 3
Similar to the approach above, in that we would have phantom urls and use the clientid as a unique marker, but actually try and simulate a server side event stream with one url.
I'm thinking the code with be more like
...
} else if (/^\/service\//.test(requestURL.pathname)) {
const stream = new TransformStream();
const writer = stream.writeable.getWriter();
event.respondWith(async () => {
const streamFinishedPromise = new Promise(async (resolve,reject) => {
event.waitUntil(async () => {
/* eventually close the link */
await streamFinishedPromise;
});
try {
while (true) writer.write(await nextMessageFromServerSideEventStream());
} catch(e) {
writer.close();
resolve();
}
});
return new Response(stream.readable,{status:200}) //probably need eventstream headers too
}
I am thinking that approach 2 could be the simplest, given where I am now but I am concerned that I can see nothing when searching for how to use service workers that discusses this phantom url approach.
Can anyone comment on any of these approaches and provide guidance on how to best program the tricky bits (for instance does Approach 1 message channel close when the browser is moved to the background on an iPad, or how do you really keep a response channel open, and does that get closed when the browser moves to the background in Approach 3)
The simple truth is that none of these approaches will work. What I didn't realise when I asked the question is that a service worker is re-run by the browser when ever there is something to do and that run only lasts for the length of time of the processing of an event. Although eventWaitUntil can prolong that, the only reference to how long I can find is that the browser is still at liberty to cancel it if it appears it might never close. I can't imagine than in a period of several hours it won't get cancelled. So an Event Source will close effectively terminate its link to the server.
So my only option to achieve what I want is to have the server carry on when the Event Source closes and find some other mechanism to release resources held on behalf of the client

"Internal" Error When Submitting Form With Firebase onCall Function on IOS Safari

I am trying to submit a form but I get an "internal" error after submit on IOS Safari. Happened on two separate devices. I'm using Firebase functions onCall function. Client code:
var contactForm =
window.firebase.functions().httpsCallable('contactForm');
let result = await contactForm({ accountUID, foldersFilter,
firstName, lastName, email, cellNumber, dobDay, dobMonth })
And server code:
exports.contactForm = functions.https.onCall(( data, context ) => {
return contactForm.contactForm( data, context )
});
This function is called via form. The form works great on chrome, safari desktop, but for some reason it gets an internal errror sometimes when testing on IOS device. At first I thought it only happened when I was using autofill, but I've tested more and I get the same error when not using autofill too.
The confusing thing is my function code is actually never being called (I don't see any firebase function logs). Here is my console in safari:
The network connection was lost.
Fetch API cannot load https://us-central1-projectId.cloudfunctions.net/contactForm due to access control checks
Failed to load resource: The network connection was lost.
internal
Why won't this form submit on ios safari?
I fixed the issue. Turns out it has something to do with Google Cloud Functions being IPv4, and Safari requiring IPv6. I suspect this will become a bigger issue moving forward. I'm having to move all onCall Firebase functions to https triggers. In order to make https triggers work, you have to use a custom domain in Firebase hosting and rewrite to your function endpoint.
{
"hosting": {
...
"rewrites": [
{
"source": "/api/contactForm",
"function": "contactForm"
}
}
and so now instead of calling https://us-central1-projectId.cloudfunctions.net/contactForm to trigger my api. I call https://customdomain.com/api/contactForm

Make periodic HTTP requests with service worker

Is it possible to make HTTP requests in background with service worker, when users are not visiting my webpage. I want to make periodic requests to my webpage (e.g. 3 seconds)?
There is a feature called periodicSync, but i didn't understand how to use it.
I've not tried implementing this but for me the clearest overview has been this explanation.
Making periodic requests involves first handling the Service Worker ready event, invoking the periodicSync.register() function with config options. The register() function returns a Promise that allows you to deal with success or rejection of the periodic sync registration.
registration.periodicSync.register()
Pass a 'config' object parameter with the following properties:
tag
minPeriod
powerState
networkState
You may then register listeners against the periodicSync event. E.g (slightly simplified example based on the explanation.
self.addEventListener('periodicsync', function(event) {
if (event.registration.tag == 'my-tag') {
event.waitUntil(doTheWork()); // "do the work" asynchronously via a Promise.
}
else {
// unknown sync, may be old, best to unregister
event.registration.unregister();
}
});

SignalR, Messages are to be pushed by the Server without any event triggered by the client

There are running examples of SignalR, but in those, i have seen that the process is started by the client i.e. every piece of code contains following similar lines
$.connection.hub.start().done(function () {
$('#mybutton').click(function () {
notifier.server.doLongOperation();
});
});
The process on server starts on $('#mybutton').click and then responds.
Is my understanding correct? If yes then is it possible to start the process by Server? I mean Server will push messages to all clients without any triggering from the client side.
This didn't work
var context = GlobalHost.ConnectionManager.GetHubContext<Broadcast>();
context.Clients.All.Send(message);
My bad, method name on client side was incorrect. Problem solved
Yes it is possible to send server initiated "messages" from the server to clients. Note that you have to call a method on the client. Note that it's a RPC/Remoting type of communication.
On the server you'd have a code like this:
Clients.All.Say("Hello World!");
where the client needs to define a function:
myHub.client.say = function (message) {
console.log(message);
});
see the SignalR documentation

Resources