producer/consumer

[meejah]

Fixes #25

The refactorings that enabled WebSocket support missed the producer / consumer registration between sender and receiver.

[codecov[bot]]

Codecov Report

Base: 99.21% // Head: 99.22% // Increases project coverage by +0.00% :tada:

Coverage data is based on head (f0abdf7) compared to base (80e02d4). Patch coverage: 100.00% of modified lines in pull request are covered.

Additional details and impacted files

```diff @@ Coverage Diff @@ ## master #30 +/- ## ======================================= Coverage 99.21% 99.22% ======================================= Files 7 7 Lines 512 514 +2 Branches 55 66 +11 ======================================= + Hits 508 510 +2 Misses 1 1 Partials 3 3 ``` | [Impacted Files](https://codecov.io/gh/magic-wormhole/magic-wormhole-transit-relay/pull/30?src=pr&el=tree&utm_medium=referral&utm_source=github&utm_content=comment&utm_campaign=pr+comments&utm_term=magic-wormhole) | Coverage Δ | | |---|---|---| | [src/wormhole\_transit\_relay/transit\_server.py](https://codecov.io/gh/magic-wormhole/magic-wormhole-transit-relay/pull/30/diff?src=pr&el=tree&utm_medium=referral&utm_source=github&utm_content=comment&utm_campaign=pr+comments&utm_term=magic-wormhole#diff-c3JjL3dvcm1ob2xlX3RyYW5zaXRfcmVsYXkvdHJhbnNpdF9zZXJ2ZXIucHk=) | `100.00% <100.00%> (ø)` | | Help us with your feedback. Take ten seconds to tell us [how you rate us](https://about.codecov.io/nps?utm_medium=referral&utm_source=github&utm_content=comment&utm_campaign=pr+comments&utm_term=magic-wormhole). Have a feature suggestion? [Share it here.](https://app.codecov.io/gh/feedback/?utm_medium=referral&utm_source=github&utm_content=comment&utm_campaign=pr+comments&utm_term=magic-wormhole)

:umbrella: View full report at Codecov.
:loudspeaker: Do you have feedback about the report comment? Let us know in this issue.

[lgtm-com[bot]]

This pull request introduces 5 alerts when merging f0abdf7c28d782920ef41d0ff6c1ab898668517c into 80e02d4a77be5abfbca966d609408f6927cb3843 - view on LGTM.com

new alerts:

• 5 for First parameter of a method is not named 'self'

[meejah]

I'm not super happy with the test, because it's somewhat slow -- but since we already had a regression here I think on balance it's fine. But, maybe "integration-style" tests should go somewhere else -- or the test should be written in a more unit-style (although then it's harder to tell we're running the "real" transit)