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

WebServer - change occurrence of client.flush() to clear() #10234

Merged
merged 1 commit into from
Aug 28, 2024

Conversation

JAndrassy
Copy link
Contributor

as follow up of changing flush() to clear() in networking with PR #9453, there is an unclear use of flush() in WebServer.

in Parsing.cpp the client.flush() is at the end of the processing of the HTTP request. the response is already sent. If the connection is not kept alive for the next request, then it is closed so why clearing it. If the connection is kept alive for the following HTTP request, then clear() could delete beginning of the following request. But characters remaining in the buffer would make the following request invalid too. So for a reused connection the processing of the request should ensure to read until the exact end of the request. I don't know if that is fulfilled.

Anyway client.flush() did clear the receive buffer in previous versions so this would return it to that.

Copy link
Contributor

Messages
📖 🎉 Good Job! All checks are passing!

👋 Hello JAndrassy, we appreciate your contribution to this project!


Click to see more instructions ...


This automated output is generated by the PR linter DangerJS, which checks if your Pull Request meets the project's requirements and helps you fix potential issues.

DangerJS is triggered with each push event to a Pull Request and modify the contents of this comment.

Please consider the following:
- Danger mainly focuses on the PR structure and formatting and can't understand the meaning behind your code or changes.
- Danger is not a substitute for human code reviews; it's still important to request a code review from your colleagues.
- To manually retry these Danger checks, please navigate to the Actions tab and re-run last Danger workflow.

Review and merge process you can expect ...


We do welcome contributions in the form of bug reports, feature requests and pull requests.

1. An internal issue has been created for the PR, we assign it to the relevant engineer.
2. They review the PR and either approve it or ask you for changes or clarifications.
3. Once the GitHub PR is approved we do the final review, collect approvals from core owners and make sure all the automated tests are passing.
- At this point we may do some adjustments to the proposed change, or extend it by adding tests or documentation.
4. If the change is approved and passes the tests it is merged into the default branch.

Generated by 🚫 dangerJS against e21f973

Copy link
Contributor

github-actions bot commented Aug 24, 2024

Test Results

 56 files   -  83   56 suites   - 83   5m 30s ⏱️ - 1h 37m 39s
 21 tests  -   9   21 ✅  -   9  0 💤 ±0  0 ❌ ±0 
135 runs   - 168  135 ✅  - 168  0 💤 ±0  0 ❌ ±0 

Results for commit e21f973. ± Comparison against base commit cd3d0bf.

This pull request removes 9 tests.
performance.coremark.test_coremark ‑ test_coremark
performance.fibonacci.test_fibonacci ‑ test_fibonacci
performance.psramspeed.test_psramspeed ‑ test_psramspeed
performance.ramspeed.test_ramspeed ‑ test_ramspeed
performance.superpi.test_superpi ‑ test_superpi
test_touch_errors
test_touch_interrtupt
test_touch_read
validation.periman.test_periman ‑ test_periman

♻️ This comment has been updated with latest results.

Copy link
Contributor

Memory usage test (comparing PR against master branch)

The table below shows the summary of memory usage change (decrease - increase) in bytes and percentage for each target.

MemoryFLASH [bytes]FLASH [%]RAM [bytes]RAM [%]
TargetDECINCDECINCDECINCDECINC
ESP32S30⚠️ +240.000.00000.000.00
ESP32S20⚠️ +320.000.00000.000.00
ESP32C30⚠️ +360.000.00000.000.00
ESP32C60⚠️ +360.000.00000.000.00
ESP320⚠️ +360.000.00000.000.00
Click to expand the detailed deltas report [usage change in BYTES]
TargetESP32S3ESP32S2ESP32C3ESP32C6ESP32
ExampleFLASHRAMFLASHRAMFLASHRAMFLASHRAMFLASHRAM
WebServer/examples/AdvancedWebServer⚠️ +240⚠️ +240⚠️ +340⚠️ +340⚠️ +320
WebServer/examples/FSBrowser⚠️ +240⚠️ +240⚠️ +340⚠️ +340⚠️ +280
WebServer/examples/Filters⚠️ +240⚠️ +280⚠️ +340⚠️ +340⚠️ +280
WebServer/examples/HelloServer⚠️ +240⚠️ +280⚠️ +360⚠️ +360⚠️ +320
WebServer/examples/HttpAdvancedAuth⚠️ +240⚠️ +320⚠️ +360⚠️ +340⚠️ +280
WebServer/examples/HttpAuthCallback⚠️ +240⚠️ +240⚠️ +340⚠️ +340⚠️ +280
WebServer/examples/HttpAuthCallbackInline⚠️ +240⚠️ +320⚠️ +340⚠️ +340⚠️ +280
WebServer/examples/HttpBasicAuth⚠️ +240⚠️ +280⚠️ +340⚠️ +360⚠️ +360
WebServer/examples/HttpBasicAuthSHA1⚠️ +240⚠️ +320⚠️ +340⚠️ +340⚠️ +280
WebServer/examples/HttpBasicAuthSHA1orBearerToken⚠️ +120⚠️ +240⚠️ +340⚠️ +340⚠️ +320
WebServer/examples/MultiHomedServers⚠️ +240⚠️ +240⚠️ +340⚠️ +340⚠️ +280
WebServer/examples/PathArgServer⚠️ +240⚠️ +240⚠️ +340⚠️ +340⚠️ +200
WebServer/examples/SDWebServer⚠️ +240⚠️ +240⚠️ +340⚠️ +340⚠️ +280
WebServer/examples/SimpleAuthentification⚠️ +240⚠️ +240⚠️ +340⚠️ +340⚠️ +320
WebServer/examples/UploadHugeFile⚠️ +240⚠️ +280⚠️ +340⚠️ +340⚠️ +240
WebServer/examples/WebServer⚠️ +240⚠️ +240⚠️ +340⚠️ +340⚠️ +280
WebServer/examples/WebUpdate⚠️ +240⚠️ +280⚠️ +340⚠️ +340⚠️ +280

@VojtechBartoska VojtechBartoska added Area: WiFi Issue related to WiFi Status: Review needed Issue or PR is awaiting review labels Aug 26, 2024
@me-no-dev me-no-dev added Status: Pending Merge Pull Request is ready to be merged and removed Status: Review needed Issue or PR is awaiting review labels Aug 27, 2024
@me-no-dev me-no-dev merged commit df4518d into espressif:master Aug 28, 2024
88 of 91 checks passed
@JAndrassy JAndrassy deleted the webserver_flush_to_clear branch August 28, 2024 09:16
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
Area: WiFi Issue related to WiFi Status: Pending Merge Pull Request is ready to be merged
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

3 participants