Merged
Conversation
mengelbart
force-pushed
the
fix-rfc8888-interceptor-timing
branch
from
4efe05c to
e1f3c06
Compare
Codecov ReportAll modified and coverable lines are covered by tests ✅
Additional details and impacted files@@ Coverage Diff @@
## master #305 +/- ##
=======================================
Coverage 71.69% 71.70%
=======================================
Files 79 79
Lines 4742 4743 +1
=======================================
+ Hits 3400 3401 +1
Misses 1203 1203
Partials 139 139
Flags with carried forward coverage won't be shown. Click here to find out more. ☔ View full report in Codecov by Sentry. 🚀 New features to boost your workflow:
|
JoTurk
approved these changes
Jan 28, 2025
aalekseevx
approved these changes
Jan 30, 2025
This is not really a bug but annoying to receivers of our reports. If the ticker ticks, but then another packet is handled first, the timestamp of the report (from the ticker) will be before the receive timestamp of the last packet in the report. In that case, the report contains a 0x1FFF value to indicate that the packet was received after the report. However, we know the timestamp and can send it, if we take the timstamp after entering the case branch. At that time, it is guaranteed, that no additional packets can be added to the report.
mengelbart
force-pushed
the
fix-rfc8888-interceptor-timing
branch
from
e1f3c06 to
3c6ae85
Compare
arjunshajitech
pushed a commit
to arjunshajitech/interceptor
that referenced
this pull request
May 13, 2025
This is not really a bug but annoying to receivers of our reports. If the ticker ticks, but then another packet is handled first, the timestamp of the report (from the ticker) will be before the receive timestamp of the last packet in the report. In that case, the report contains a 0x1FFF value to indicate that the packet was received after the report. However, we know the timestamp and can send it, if we take the timstamp after entering the case branch. At that time, it is guaranteed, that no additional packets can be added to the report.
This file contains hidden or 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
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
3 participants
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.
Description
This is not really a bug but annoying to receivers of our reports. If the ticker ticks, but then another packet is handled first, the timestamp of the report (from the ticker) will be before the receive timestamp of the last packet in the report. In that case, the report contains a 0x1FFF value to indicate that the packet was received after the report. However, we know the timestamp and can send it, if we take the timstamp after entering the case branch. At that time, it is guaranteed, that no additional packets can be added to the report.