Project:
View Issue Details[ Jump to Notes ] | [ Issue History ] [ Print ] | |||||||||||
ID | ||||||||||||
0053279 | ||||||||||||
Type | Category | Severity | Reproducibility | Date Submitted | Last Update | |||||||
design defect | [Retail Modules] Web POS | major | sometimes | 2023-08-24 08:50 | 2023-09-15 13:21 | |||||||
Reporter | joniturralde93 | View Status | public | |||||||||
Assigned To | Retail | |||||||||||
Priority | urgent | Resolution | open | Fixed in Version | ||||||||
Status | new | Fix in branch | Fixed in SCM revision | |||||||||
Projection | none | ETA | none | Target Version | ||||||||
OS | Any | Database | Any | Java version | ||||||||
OS Version | Database version | Ant version | ||||||||||
Product Version | SCM revision | |||||||||||
Review Assigned To | ||||||||||||
Regression level | ||||||||||||
Regression date | ||||||||||||
Regression introduced in release | ||||||||||||
Regression introduced by commit | ||||||||||||
Triggers an Emergency Pack | No | |||||||||||
Summary | 0053279: connectRFIDDevice and disconnectRFIDDevice execution order | |||||||||||
Description | Those RFID functions have no warranty to be finished at the same time they are called. As both of them send the command through the websocket as a callback of the "waitForAck" function, if you execute one of them and immediately after the other one, it is possible that the commands are sent to the HWM in the incorrect order due to asynchronicity | |||||||||||
Steps To Reproduce | - In our case, the customer is using a custom RFID integration, UPOS RFID, but the problem happens in the standard RFID functions of rfidWebSocket. - Due to very quick user actions, we execute disconnectRFIDDevice and then connectRFIDDevice almost at the same time. - Disconnect executes waitForAck, then connect executes it also, but the callback of connect starts earlier (randomly). In that case, we first send the connect command and later the disconnect command to the hardware manager, which is incorrect and can lead to the RFID device being paused when it should be enabled and vice versa. | |||||||||||
Proposed Solution | Implement a way to ensure that the order of the function calls corresponds to the order which we send the commands to HWM, maybe a queue system, or even discarding commands if the last received call is oposed to the one being executed (to be analyzed). | |||||||||||
Tags | No tags attached. | |||||||||||
Attached Files | ||||||||||||
Relationships [ Relation Graph ] [ Dependency Graph ] | |
Issue History | |||
Date Modified | Username | Field | Change |
2023-08-24 08:50 | joniturralde93 | New Issue | |
2023-08-24 08:50 | joniturralde93 | Assigned To | => Retail |
2023-08-24 08:50 | joniturralde93 | Triggers an Emergency Pack | => No |
2023-09-04 15:31 | ranjith_qualiantech_com | Assigned To | Retail => ranjith_qualiantech_com |
2023-09-15 13:21 | guillermogil | Assigned To | ranjith_qualiantech_com => Retail |
2023-09-15 13:21 | guillermogil | Type | defect => design defect |
Copyright © 2000 - 2009 MantisBT Group |