Skip to content
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

set stop status when exiting. #73

Closed
wants to merge 1 commit into from
Closed

set stop status when exiting. #73

wants to merge 1 commit into from

Conversation

yylt
Copy link

@yylt yylt commented Mar 8, 2024

update stub.started when stub stop

Signed-off-by: yylt yang8518296@163.com

Signed-off-by: yylt <yang8518296@163.com>
@codecov-commenter
Copy link

Codecov Report

All modified and coverable lines are covered by tests ✅

Project coverage is 64.44%. Comparing base (53d3371) to head (c1655e6).

❗ Current head c1655e6 differs from pull request most recent head b778f84. Consider uploading reports for the commit b778f84 to get more accurate results

Additional details and impacted files
@@            Coverage Diff             @@
##             main      #73      +/-   ##
==========================================
- Coverage   64.55%   64.44%   -0.11%     
==========================================
  Files          10       10              
  Lines        1845     1845              
==========================================
- Hits         1191     1189       -2     
- Misses        503      505       +2     
  Partials      151      151              

☔ View full report in Codecov by Sentry.
📢 Have feedback on the report? Share it here.

@klihub
Copy link
Member

klihub commented Mar 12, 2024

@yylt I suspect you try to make stub.Stub re-Start()able, right ?

I am not sure if that is a good idea, mostly because I'm not sure at the moment if this is enough to safely be able to do that. If you need to restart the your plugin after a disconnect from the runtime, I think it would be a safer alternative to create a new stub for the plugin and start that one instead.

@yylt
Copy link
Author

yylt commented Mar 13, 2024

@yylt I suspect you try to make stub.Stub re-Start()able, right ?

I am not sure if that is a good idea, mostly because I'm not sure at the moment if this is enough to safely be able to do that. If you need to restart the your plugin after a disconnect from the runtime, I think it would be a safer alternative to create a new stub for the plugin and start that one instead.

haha... indeed, the intention was to restart, but later it was found that there were still other issues about channel with the start , so it was changed to using the method of creating a new struct.

If it is still not possible to start after stopping, there is really no need to set it up.

I'm not sure how things will evolve afterwards, but perhaps this change can be added.

@klihub
Copy link
Member

klihub commented Mar 13, 2024

@yylt I suspect you try to make stub.Stub re-Start()able, right ?
I am not sure if that is a good idea, mostly because I'm not sure at the moment if this is enough to safely be able to do that. If you need to restart the your plugin after a disconnect from the runtime, I think it would be a safer alternative to create a new stub for the plugin and start that one instead.

haha... indeed, the intention was to restart, but later it was found that there were still other issues about channel with the start , so it was changed to using the method of creating a new struct.

If it is still not possible to start after stopping, there is really no need to set it up.

I'm not sure how things will evolve afterwards, but perhaps this change can be added.

@yylt Is it then okay for you if I close this with a comment summarizing the above conclusion ? If we later decide that we want to make the stub reStart()able, we can reopen this and stack any other necessary commits on top to achieve that goal.

@yylt yylt closed this Mar 13, 2024
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

None yet

3 participants