xmppjs / hubot-xmpp

XMPP adapter for Hubot
181 stars 101 forks source link

Hubot signs off when messaging offline user #61

Closed ayamanaka closed 10 years ago

ayamanaka commented 10 years ago

I've recently tried to get hubot+xmpp set up at work, and I am running into an issue where when hubot attempts to privately message a user who is offline, he goes offline. When I look at the logs, this is what is there after the event of receiving the command to message a private user:

[Fri Feb 21 2014 15:44:12 GMT-0800 (PST)] DEBUG Received offline event [Fri Feb 21 2014 15:44:12 GMT-0800 (PST)] DEBUG Received offline event

and that is it. Hubot signs out of our internal chat service, but it looks like his process continues to run. I am using the most recent version of hubot and xmpp, and the only changes I have made are to the xmpp.coffee script. I changed all of the lines referencing chatroom names ("#{room.jid}@our-internal-chat.com/#{@robot.name}") so he could actually get into our chatrooms. Here is the code I am using to test privately messaging the offline user:

robot.respond /message/i, (msg) -> msg.envelope.user.type = 'direct' msg.envelope.user.privateChatJID = "someofflineuser@our-internal-chat.com" msg.send "Testing offline messages"

Hubot can attempt to privately message users who don't exist, and works fine. Anyways, is this something anyone else has experienced? Is there something wrong with changing the chatroom references in xmpp.coffee? Do I need to change it elsewhere? Is there something wrong with the method I am using to privately message users? Do I need to provide more information in order for someone to help me?

Thank you!

ayamanaka commented 10 years ago

I should probably also mention I removed redis-brain.coffee from the list of hubot-scripts, as we don't really need it.

mdarveau commented 10 years ago

Hi,

You said that you "all of the lines referencing chatroom names ("#{ room.jid}@our-internal-chat.com/#{@robot.name}") so he could actually get into our chatrooms". Why do you have to do that? If you pass a coma separated list of chatrooms in process.env.HUBOT_XMPP_ROOMS (in a shell: export HUBOT_XMPP_ROOMS=someroom@our-internal-chat.com before you launch hubot), hubot will connect to those rooms.

Then, if you need to send a private message, you can do: envelope = user: privateChatJID: someofflineuser@our-internal-chat.com type: 'chat' @robot.send( envelope, message )

Manuel

On Fri, Feb 21, 2014 at 7:32 PM, ayamanaka notifications@github.com wrote:

I've recently tried to get hubot+xmpp set up at work, and I am running into an issue where when hubot attempts to privately message a user who is offline, he goes offline. When I look at the logs, this is what is there after the event of receiving the command to message a private user:

[Fri Feb 21 2014 15:44:12 GMT-0800 (PST)] DEBUG Received offline event [Fri Feb 21 2014 15:44:12 GMT-0800 (PST)] DEBUG Received offline event

and that is it. Hubot signs out of our internal chat service, but it looks like his process continues to run. I am using the most recent version of hubot and xmpp, and the only changes I have made are to the xmpp.coffee script. I changed all of the lines referencing chatroom names ("#{ room.jid}@our-internal-chat.com/#{@robot.name}") so he could actually get into our chatrooms. Here is the code I am using to test privately messaging the offline user:

robot.respond /message/i, (msg) -> msg.envelope.user.type = 'direct' msg.envelope.user.privateChatJID = "someofflineuser@our-internal-chat.com" msg.send "Testing offline messages"

Hubot can attempt to privately message users who don't exist, and works fine. Anyways, is this something anyone else has experienced? Is there something wrong with changing the chatroom references in xmpp.coffee? Do I need to change it elsewhere? Is there something wrong with the method I am using to privately message users? Do I need to provide more information in order for someone to help me?

Thank you!

Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHubhttps://github.com/markstory/hubot-xmpp/issues/61 .

ayamanaka commented 10 years ago

Ah! That worked perfectly. Thanks so much for your help! =)

markstory commented 10 years ago

Thanks @MacKeeper :+1: