dmanty45 / bots

Automatically exported from code.google.com/p/bots
0 stars 0 forks source link

Improve: changes in processing (massive code change) #154

Closed GoogleCodeExporter closed 8 years ago

GoogleCodeExporter commented 8 years ago
This is quite a massive code change.
General purpose is to simplify the ta-mechanism in Bots: the tracking of each 
process-step of edifiles in bots.
This code was hard to understand/maintain/change.
User interface for handling errors is simpler (I  hope)

Some results:
- option (in bots.ini) to have an 'automatic crash recovery' after certain time
- reworked 'crash recovery'-logic. Encountered cases where handling was not OK. 
Only ONE email is send for crash.
- if edifile is valid according to grammar (but errors in mapping script and/or 
outgoing file: only drop outgoing messages with errors, rest is translated.
- in outfile: communication errors are visible in this screen and can be 
selected for 'resend' (including a 'resend all'-option)
- simpler code: engine.py. route.py, automaticmaintenance.py, botslib.py, less 
globals
- indicate in screens a file has been resend; filer works 'over' resends.
- use 'channel' in selects (useful for resend selects)
- less 'statusses' in bots.
- dropped 'retry' option (the general retry)
- dropped 'retrycommunication' option in runs: use resend. This is easier and 
more consistent to use.

Original issue reported on code.google.com by hjebb...@gmail.com on 20 Aug 2012 at 3:26

GoogleCodeExporter commented 8 years ago
I will have to do some testing with this. Currently I have a scheduled 
--automaticretrycommunication run hourly. This is often needed because of ftp 
timeouts on sending... but I don't want to do this manually.

Original comment by mjg1964 on 26 Sep 2012 at 1:00

GoogleCodeExporter commented 8 years ago
this should work as before.

I tried to make the handing of errors easier and simpler.
but this is, I think, the preferred way of handling communication errors.

what is added here is that the number of resend is tracked.
I can imagine a maintenance script that checks this.

Original comment by hjebb...@gmail.com on 26 Sep 2012 at 1:10

GoogleCodeExporter commented 8 years ago

Original comment by hjebb...@gmail.com on 31 Mar 2013 at 11:49

GoogleCodeExporter commented 8 years ago

Original comment by hjebb...@gmail.com on 10 Sep 2013 at 12:45