[Fabric-Sync] Implement pair-device command #36508
Open
+155
−0
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
|
Review changes with |
yufengwangca
changed the title
|
PR #36508: Size comparison from 1bdcb74 to 3888c77 Full report (68 builds for bl602, bl702, bl702l, cc13x4_26x4, cc32xx, cyw30739, efr32, esp32, linux, nrfconnect, nxp, psoc6, qpg, stm32, telink, tizen)
|
pidarped
reviewed
Nov 15, 2024
| "Failed to pair non-specified device (0x:" ChipLogFormatX64 ") with error: %" CHIP_ERROR_FORMAT, | ||
| ChipLogValueX64(deviceId), err.Format()); | ||
| } | ||
| else |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Wondering when this case will arise. i.e., commissioning completing successfully without the NodeId matching.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
The PairDeviceCommand registers itself as the delegate to the CommissioningWindowOpener through the PairingManager. In this example, multiple commissions are not supported, so this scenario is not expected to occur.
However, the PairDeviceCommand will receive all OnCommissioningComplete callbacks for all devices, as the API does not limit these callbacks to the registering node. This check serves as an additional safeguard against such cases.
tehampson
reviewed
Nov 15, 2024
| @@ -197,6 +229,10 @@ static CHIP_ERROR AppPlatformHandler(int argc, char ** argv) | |||
| { | |||
| return HandleAddDeviceCommand(argc, argv); | |||
| } | |||
| else if (strcmp(argv[0], "pair-device") == 0) | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Generally speaking why are we adding a new command when you can already do pairing onnetwork ...? Knowing the answer to this question would really help me review this PR faster as I will know what difference I am trying to look for.
If you added this information to the PR description that would be helpful to anyone else as well
There was a problem hiding this comment.
We don't have 'pairing onnetwork' command in fabric-sync since it is not inherited from chip-tool, basically we need to implement all commands we need to do fabric-sync.
This command allow to pair a simulated matter device started on the same machine, then we don't need to use a separate matter device to test fabric-sync, just like what we did in the cert test.
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
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.
We don't have 'pairing onnetwork' command in fabric-sync since it is not inherited from chip-tool, basically we need to implement all commands we need to do fabric-sync.
This command allow to pair a simulated matter device started on the same machine, then we don't need to use a separate matter device to test fabric-sync, just like what we did in the cert test.