Closed Miosame closed 4 years ago
Thanks! will take a look at the rest once I come home later tonight.
Done, implemented the suggestions and cleaned up a little.
It would be nice if when a range is used that it only ping'd servers in that range. Currently the most costly part of this module is pinging all of the servers and ranges could help with that.
@DylanPiercey that already should be taken care of by:
and
I believe?
@Miosame ah yes, sorry I missed that.
@DylanPiercey no worries, I had to check too first 👍
@DylanPiercey I'm currently also under heavy load, but just remembered about this - is there anything that worries you before the merge we could look at?
@DylanPiercey bump? :tada:
@Miosame could you add an extra example to the docs demonstrating the range functionality? I think it looks good to merge otherwise.
Good point @DylanPiercey. Can you take care of this @Miosame, please?
@natterstefan @DylanPiercey sure will do this later today or tomorrow :+1:
@natterstefan @DylanPiercey done :tada: (not sure if I should add the contributor emojis though)
@natterstefan didn't notice that locally, thanks!
I'm not sure if the way the servers array is filled aligns with the general idea and what should happen if a wrong range is passed, so that's up to discussion / review process.
Currently it:
findLocalDevices()
if it is a range and assigns / fills the servers array based on that.return
to return undefined, similar to how it is done throughout other parts of the code?) together with notes inside the readme if it will throw instead of returning undefined.Again: Edits are checked / allowed and welcome.