Draft
Conversation
This file contains hidden or 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
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
1 participant
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Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.Suggestions cannot be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.
Follow up to #703 in addressing #683.
Trying to synchronize solely using nanonext messages is an imperfect art as they travel faster than the HTTP data. In #703 (comment) we add a 50ms delay, which is sufficient in most cases but can still fail occasionally on CI, e.g. at https://github.com/r-lib/httr2/actions/runs/19969784805/job/57271264809.
nanonext messages are only good for indicating data has been sent, not that it has been received. We should instead use
later::later_fd()to wait on the data directly on the receiving end. A nanonext message can then request the next batch of data.