-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 135
gatt: Add ATT long-write (Prepare/Execute Write) support #961
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
Open
miq312
wants to merge
4
commits into
google:main
Choose a base branch
from
miq312:feat/att-long-write
base: main
Could not load branches
Branch not found: {{ refName }}
Loading
Could not load tags
Nothing to show
Loading
Are you sure you want to change the base?
Some commits from the old base branch may be removed from the timeline,
and old review comments may become outdated.
+253
−2
Open
Changes from all commits
Commits
Show all changes
4 commits
Select commit
Hold shift + click to select a range
e337316
gatt: Add server-side ATT long-write (Prepare/Execute Write) support
miq312 9186a56
gatt: Add client-side ATT long-write (Prepare/Execute Write) support
miq312 c951930
gatt: Add tests for ATT long writes
miq312 c247f52
Simplify write_long_value loop to use range
miq312 File filter
Filter by extension
Conversations
Failed to load comments.
Loading
Jump to
Jump to file
Failed to load files.
Loading
Diff view
Diff view
There are no files selected for viewing
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
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
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
Oops, something went wrong.
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.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
This is debatable here, and also why I didn't implement long write. On most platforms, including Android, iOS, and BlueZ, write request callbacks have arguments for offset, and every prepared write request is handled by handler applications. Whether to execute long reliable write simultaneously is actually decided by handlers. Thus, the design here will be different from most platforms.
Also, Core spec doesn't regulate the detail about prepared write. For example, sending (offset=0, length=3), (offset=4,length=1) (byte 3 is missing) is valid. Of course, apps can reject them, but here the behavior just fixed by the server class.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
However, handling like these platforms is also challenging for us, because we didn't introduce the offset parameter at first. The only way to achieve that is to introduce V3 handler, but it worths a hesitation.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Supporting the most flexible case, where the low level offset-based reads and writes are exposed to the handlers would indeed require some API extension ("v3 handler"), that's probably not needed for most use cases, where what you want it maximum simplicity, where the application only deals with complete payloads (including the ability to encode/decode automatically into specific data types, which is very convenient). So implementing the simple case first, where re-assembly is done in the library, seems like a good option, even if we have to enforce some fixed policy (like "no gaps allowed", for example).
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Yes, we should leave a TODO here about it