Matter Switch: Simplify component to endpoint mapping logic #2560
Conversation
hcarter-775
requested review from
ctowns,
gharveymn,
greens and
nickolas-deboom
|
Invitation URL: |
|
Minimum allowed coverage is Generated by 🐒 cobertura-action against 574fd58 |
| local formatted_info = {} | ||
| if type(ep_info) == "number" then | ||
| ep_info = { endpoint_id = ep_info } | ||
| formatted_info = { endpoint_id = ep_info } | ||
| elseif type(ep_info) == "table" then | ||
| ep_info = { | ||
| endpoint_id = ep_info.endpoint_id, | ||
| cluster_id = ep_info.cluster_id, | ||
| attribute_id = ep_info.attribute_id | ||
| } | ||
| formatted_info = ep_info |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Effectively, can't this just be
if type(ep_info) == "number" then
ep_info = { endpoint_id = ep_info }
end? There isn't any transform done to the table form, and other types are not transformed.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
oh it can. I just thought that might be weird/wrong cause the capability event id is going to get appended later and that's not technically "ep info"
There was a problem hiding this comment.
but I suppose it's kinda equally weird to break it apart like I did, so I'll switch it
There was a problem hiding this comment.
ended up removing capabilities from the mapping, so this makes even more sense now
| --- to route events to. | ||
| --- | ||
| --- @param device any a Matter device object | ||
| --- @param ep_info number|table endpoint_id or ib (includes endpoint_id, cluster_id, attribute_id) |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Are cluster_id and attribute_id required when in table form? Is capability_id required as well?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
again, they are at the time but I suppose don't need to be. changed the wording in the upcoming commit
There was a problem hiding this comment.
well, it actually reads endpoint_id or ib, and I note that the ib includes that data. I agree this wording is a little confused
| --- single endpoint. | ||
| --- | ||
| --- @param device any a Matter device object | ||
| --- @param opts number|table either is an ep_id or a table { endpoint_id, capability_id } |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I think this doc should include mention of the required fields of cluster_id and attribute_id when in table form.
| and (not map_info.cluster_id or (map_info.cluster_id == opts.cluster_id | ||
| and utils.tbl_contains(map_info.attribute_ids, opts.attribute_id))) |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
We are using the logic that existence of the cluster_id field implies the existence of a non-nil attribute_id. Is this always the case?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
It is at the time (and I can't see when/why it wouldn't be), though I can see how it can seem a little arbitrary. fixed in next commit (cannot push now due to github outage)
| end | ||
| local opts = { endpoint_info = ep_info, capability_id = event.capability.ID } | ||
| local comp_id = utils.endpoint_to_component(device, opts) | ||
| formatted_info.capability_ID = event.capability.ID |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Typo:
| formatted_info.capability_ID = event.capability.ID | |
| formatted_info.capability_id = event.capability.ID |
Description of Change
This cuts down the amount of checks and reformatting handled in the
endpoint_to_componentandemit_event_for_endpointfunctions.This logic was just added by me in the recent Camera PR and it was a bit rushed. This cleans up some unnecessary logic that was introduced.
Summary of Completed Tests
Tested by Unit Test. Expanded functionality is currently only utilized by unreleased Camera subdriver