ws: Review pong behavior (remove no-op) #48
Merged
Conversation
This file contains 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
vanm
changed the title
ghost
pushed a commit
that referenced
this pull request
Dec 1, 2015
ws: Review pong behavior (remove no-op)
ghost
merged commit 
This pull request was closed.
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
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Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.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.
Updated:
I noticed the @ws.pong is a no-op in the current slack-client version and thought we might need to call pong after a ping (manually). After looking at ws, that doesn't seem to be the case in the both latest version and old 0.4.31 versions of
ws:onping is called after a ping:
https://github.com/websockets/ws/blob/master/lib/Receiver.js#L645
within onping, pong is called automatically at the ws level:
https://github.com/websockets/ws/blob/master/lib/WebSocket.js#L810
Given the issues reported around disconnects / timeouts, I wanted to surface this for discussion. I think this code should be removed since it is a no-op.