Recover from rare error condition from LIRC #2267
Merged
Conversation
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
| try: | ||
| code = lirc.nextcode() # list; empty if no buttons pressed | ||
| except lirc.NextCodeError: | ||
| _LOGGER.warning('Encountered error reading next code from LIRC') |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
- 80: E501 line too long (80 > 79 characters)
|
Looks good! 🐬 |
balloob
pushed a commit
that referenced
this pull request
Jun 12, 2016
* More resilient accessing of LIRC codes to handle rare error case. * Line length fix in LIRC
Sign up for free
to subscribe to this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
Description:
This handles a rare but occasional error condition from LIRC. This only happened a few times to me but it crashed the module "for good" and I had to restart HASS to get IR commands working again. With this fix, it's more robust.
Checklist:
If code communicates with devices:
toxrun successfully.... actually there are some unrelated unit test failures...