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

Add bitaxe to latest #4355

Open
wants to merge 1 commit into
base: master
Choose a base branch
from

Conversation

Hans-Wurst-21
Copy link
Contributor

Please add my adapter ioBroker.bitaxe to latest.

This pull request was created by https://www.iobroker.dev c0726ff.

@github-actions github-actions bot added auto-checked This PR was automatically checked for obvious criterias must be fixed The Adapter request got review/automatic feedback that is required to be fixed before another review *📬 a new comment has been added labels Dec 6, 2024
@github-actions github-actions bot deleted a comment from Hans-Wurst-21 Dec 6, 2024
@github-actions github-actions bot deleted a comment from Hans-Wurst-21 Dec 6, 2024
@mcm1957 mcm1957 added new at LATEST and removed *📬 a new comment has been added must be fixed The Adapter request got review/automatic feedback that is required to be fixed before another review labels Dec 6, 2024
@mcm1957
Copy link
Collaborator

mcm1957 commented Dec 6, 2024

reminder 13.12.2024

@mcm1957 mcm1957 added RE-REVIEW pending (by mcm1957) Changes requested by review have been applied, re-review could be done. REVIEW pending (by mcm1957) and removed RE-REVIEW pending (by mcm1957) Changes requested by review have been applied, re-review could be done. labels Dec 8, 2024
@github-actions github-actions bot deleted a comment from mcm1957 Dec 18, 2024
Copy link

github-actions bot commented Dec 18, 2024

Automated adapter checker

ioBroker.bitaxe

Downloads - Test and Release
NPM

👍 No errors found

  • 👀 [W401] Cannot find "bitaxe" in latest repository

Add comment "RE-CHECK!" to start check anew

@github-actions github-actions bot added the *📬 a new comment has been added label Dec 18, 2024
@mcm1957
Copy link
Collaborator

mcm1957 commented Dec 18, 2024

@Hans-Wurst-21

First of all - THANK YOU for the time and effort you spend to maintain this adapter.

I would like to give some feedback based on my personal oppinion. @Apollon77 might have additional suggestions or even a different oppinion to one or the other statement. Please feel free to contact him if you cannot follow my suggestions or want to discuss some special aspects.

  • UI labels seem to have no translation into all languages

    It seems that labels are not translated into all supported languages.
    Please consider adding missing translations to english translations json and run npm run translate

  • Add timeout to axios calls

    All axios calls should have a timeout set. The default value for axios timeout is 0 which results in no timeout. So an unresponsive remote system could lead to an hanging adapter. Either set an appropiate timeout per axios call or set a default timeout globally for the axios instance.

  • consider using adapter.setTimeout / this.setTimeout instead of (standard) setTimeout

    The adapter package provides wrapper routines for native setTimeout, setInterval, clearTimeout and clearInterval. Using those routines ensures that timers are cancelled on on load. Additional checks on thomse limits might be performed, too. So consider replacing native setTimeout/clearTimeout by adapter.setTimeout/adapter.clearTimeout or this.setTimeout/this.clearTimeout. The same refers to setInterval/clearInterval.

  • check and limit configurable timeouts / intervals

    Node setTimeout/setInterval routines have a maximum allowed value of 2,147,483,647 ms. Using delays larger than 2,147,483,647 ms (about 24.8 days) result in the timeout being executed immediately. So all (user configurable) values passed to setTimeout / setInterval should be checked in code and limited. Checking/limiting in code is required as config data could be changed directly or by some other adapter too, so limiting at ui level might not be sufficient.

Thanks for reading and evaluating this suggestions.
McM1957

Please add a comment when you have reviewed and fixed the suggestions or at least commented the suggestions and you think the adapter is ready for a re-review!

reminder 1.1.2025

@mcm1957 mcm1957 added must be fixed The Adapter request got review/automatic feedback that is required to be fixed before another review and removed *📬 a new comment has been added REVIEW pending (by mcm1957) 1.1.2025 labels Dec 18, 2024
@mcm1957
Copy link
Collaborator

mcm1957 commented Jan 15, 2025

Did you have time to review and fix the issues listed abaove? I did not receive any feedback until now. Do you need some help? Please let us know what the current status of processing is.

reminder 22.1.2025

@github-actions github-actions bot added 22.1.2025 remind after 22.1.2025 and removed 1.1.2025 labels Jan 15, 2025
@mcm1957
Copy link
Collaborator

mcm1957 commented Jan 22, 2025

@Hans-Wurst-21

To verify the Object structure of this adapter during RE-REVIEW please export the object structure of a working installation and attach the file in addtion to fixing or commenting the issues mentioned above. You find a guide how to export the object struture here: https://github.com/ioBroker/ioBroker.repochecker/blob/master/OBJECTDUMP.md

Thanks

@mcm1957
Copy link
Collaborator

mcm1957 commented Jan 31, 2025

@Hans-Wurst-21

Did you have time to review and fix the issues listed abaove? I did not receive any feedback until now. Do you need some help? Please let us know what the current status of processing is.

To verify the Object structure of this adapter during RE-REVIEW please export the object structure of a working installation and attach the file in addtion to fixing or commenting the issues mentioned above. You find a guide how to export the object struture here: https://github.com/ioBroker/ioBroker.repochecker/blob/master/OBJECTDUMP.md

Thanks

reminder 10.2.2025

@github-actions github-actions bot added 10.2.2025 remind after 10.2.2025 and removed 22.1.2025 remind after 22.1.2025 labels Jan 31, 2025
@mcm1957 mcm1957 added stale PR seems has no activity, will be closed after some time 22.1.2025 remind after 22.1.2025 and removed 10.2.2025 remind after 10.2.2025 labels Jan 31, 2025

This comment was marked as outdated.

@github-actions github-actions bot added 10.2.2025 remind after 10.2.2025 and removed 22.1.2025 remind after 22.1.2025 labels Jan 31, 2025
@mcm1957
Copy link
Collaborator

mcm1957 commented Feb 12, 2025

@Hans-Wurst-21

Did you have time to review and fix the issues listed above? I did not receive any feedback until now. Do you need some help? Please let us know what the current status of processing is.

To verify the Object structure of this adapter during RE-REVIEW please export the object structure of a working installation and attach the file in addtion to fixing or commenting the issues mentioned above. You find a guide how to export the object struture here: https://github.com/ioBroker/ioBroker.repochecker/blob/master/OBJECTDUMP.md

Any reaction - even a short statement that you plan to resume work at xxx will be welcome.

If there is no reaction until 28.2.2025 this PR will be closed.

reminder 20.2.2025

@mcm1957 mcm1957 added stale - marked for closing There was no feedback vom PR owner, PR will be closed. and removed stale PR seems has no activity, will be closed after some time labels Feb 12, 2025
@github-actions github-actions bot added 20.2.2025 remind after 20.2.2025 and removed 10.2.2025 remind after 10.2.2025 labels Feb 12, 2025
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
20.2.2025 remind after 20.2.2025 auto-checked This PR was automatically checked for obvious criterias must be fixed The Adapter request got review/automatic feedback that is required to be fixed before another review new at LATEST stale - marked for closing There was no feedback vom PR owner, PR will be closed.
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

2 participants