------------------------------------------------------------------------
A poll associated with this post was created, to vote and see the
results, please visit http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=116649
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Question: On what player types does the alarm fail for you?
    
- Squeezebox Radio (official firmware 7.x) 
- Squeezebox Radio (community firmware 8.x) 
- Squeezebox Touch (official firmware 7.x) 
- Squeezebox Touch (community firmware 8.x) 
- SB Classic/Boom/Receiver/Transporter 
- Other (eg. Raspberry Pi based)
------------------------------------------------------------------------

mherger wrote: 
> > Shows the Material client shutting down the alarm 99% of the time in
> all
> > 8.x versions.
> Does it really _fail_ the alarm, or just log that one statement? Because
> 
> we still believe this was a 8.3 only issue...

mherger wrote: 
> > Do note that the SB devices themselves appear to use cometd as well
> as
> > indicated by this log snippet:
> 
> But that's ok, isn't it? If you hit power off on the device then the 
> alarm is expected to stop.
> 
> > So it isn't strictly necessary to be using Material, it may also be
> e.g.
> 
> The difference here is that the above is an interaction between the user
> 
> and the system, whereas in the case of Material it's an automated 
> reaction to some state change (a subscription).

See my reaction to Kev. In my view this is simply unfortunate timing of
parallel developments and yes it does require a fairly specific
environment so the majority of users will not be affected by the bug.

As for the randomness like I mentioned earlier there does appear to be a
time factor involved as well. Can't really pinpoint it, but yesterday I
couldn't make the alarm fail until I subscribed to a third player in my
Material session. The logs are also somewhat puzzling as for every alarm
that is being triggered there is an _alarmEnd response but there is
always only one, i.e. if the Material client pops up issuing this
request 'ALARM' which is expected to show up there doesn't. I mentioned
earlier that I suspected this to be a logging issue but in hindsight I
think LMS may be blocking multiple prefsync requests issued
simultaneously and only serving the one that is first in queue. This
makes it plausible that you could never replicate this if you run LMS on
a workstation class machine where LMS is likely to win that election
every time.


------------------------------------------------------------------------
gordonb3's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=71050
View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=116649

_______________________________________________
beta mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/beta

Reply via email to