-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 13
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
Add read_until_timeout #17
Open
RossSmyth
wants to merge
1
commit into
de-vri-es:main
Choose a base branch
from
RossSmyth:main
base: main
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and old review comments may become outdated.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
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 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.
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Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.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.
Instead of this
You could do this
the function would then read into the buffer slice and return the number of bytes successfully into the buffer. If a timeout occured, then obviously the return value will < buff.len()
this aligns with how many other apis work as well, and is also nostd ( embedded ) friendly as the buffer could just be a slice into a static allocated array
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.
Also, the timeout bounds is kinda common for all of these methods, so does not really need to be explained.
pub fn read_into(...)
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.
My primary use is an API that doesn't really care about the size and more about the timeout, which is why I named it such.
You do showcase something interesting which is that this API is in essence very similar to read_exact. Just it special cases timeout as being Ok, which you can do manually with something like
Though this does rely on the implementation detail of this library which is that the buffer is written to in the loop.
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.
read_exact
using a loop is something you can rely on. There is no other way, since the contract of the underlyingread
syscall is that it can return less than the requested bytes. At-least on Unix, and we try to get that behavior on Windows too.I'm still considering if this should be fixed by a timeout returned
Ok(0)
instead of an error or not.If we do,
read_exact
will still fail withUnexpectedEof
(instead ofTimedOut
). Butread_to_end()
will returnOk
.From the standard library documentation of
read()
:So the question is: should we mimick the guarantees of a
TcpStream
or aFile
? Conceptually, a serial port is more similar to aTcpStream
than aFile
, so that kinda hints to keeping the timeout as an error instead ofOk(0)
.But then a convenience function that reads until a timeout (and returns
Ok
) is certainly useful.