mirror of
https://github.com/tzapu/WiFiManager.git
synced 2026-04-27 00:55:52 +03:00
[GH-ISSUE #80] Gives up too quickly #55
Labels
No labels
📶 WiFi
🕸️ HTTP
Branch
DEV Help Wanted
Discussion
Documentation
ESP32
Example
Good First Issue
Hotfix
In Progress
Incomplete
Needs Feeback
Priority
QA
Question
Task
Upstream/Dependancy
bug
duplicate
enhancement
invalid
pull-request
wontfix
No milestone
No project
No assignees
1 participant
Notifications
Due date
No due date set.
Dependencies
No dependencies set.
Reference
starred/WiFiManager#55
Loading…
Add table
Add a link
Reference in a new issue
No description provided.
Delete branch "%!s()"
Deleting a branch is permanent. Although the deleted branch may continue to exist for a short time before it actually gets removed, it CANNOT be undone in most cases. Continue?
Originally created by @buzztiaan on GitHub (Jan 23, 2016).
Original GitHub issue: https://github.com/tzapu/WiFiManager/issues/80
Did i read right that it only tries connecting once, and then gives up and becomes an access point?
I think some configurable retry-count is in order, with some smallish delay between then. Just to make it a bit more userfriendly on not perfect reception locations :D
@tzapu commented on GitHub (Jan 24, 2016):
hi, only tries once,
but in my experience, when reception is poor, the connecting functions just stand there waiting a lot longer until they can establish the connection.
if you have those kinds of issues, maybe it s worth thinking about starting it on a button press rather than automatically... and on normal startup retry as you see fit
@buzztiaan commented on GitHub (Jan 24, 2016):
whats the exact issue you are avoiding by not doing something as simple as 'try 5 times' ?
@tzapu commented on GitHub (Jan 25, 2016):
needless delays, i am not a fan of delays :)
i ve got some battery powered sensors for instance, that could do without waiting for a number of retries
(it could be set to 1, of course).
there are also some situations(routers i guess) in which i ve had the connection take a looong while before connecting, having 5 retries would mean it would take forever to get to see the configuration access point
@buzztiaan commented on GitHub (Jan 25, 2016):
i see it give up within 3 seconds as-is, in situations where all wifi clients around it have a fine signal
i'll just fork and implement, see if it gets better
the default could be repeat once ;)
@tzapu commented on GitHub (Jan 25, 2016):
for example, i have a router that at times takes 20 secs or more to connect or fail... i m saying 20 because i kind of give up counting by then, could be longer 30-40
@tzapu commented on GitHub (Jan 31, 2016):
i ve also just thought of this, using the OnDemandConfigPortal + a WiFi.begin() in a loop of retries you can achieve exactly what you propose, so the tools are already there
@tzapu commented on GitHub (Feb 16, 2016):
@buzztiaan i have added a new option to WiFiManger to set a connect timeout.
in order to use this you d need to update to the latest github version of the lib and call
wifiManager.setConnectTimeout(30);before autoConnect. parameter is timeout in seconds .
i am very intereste to know if this would help in your case
@buzztiaan commented on GitHub (Feb 16, 2016):
I'll test it out within 24hrs!
@tzapu commented on GitHub (Feb 23, 2016):
also, if that doesn t work, could you try the following sketch and see if you get a connection?
https://gist.github.com/tzapu/5b13866aaa584b32074a
@tablatronix commented on GitHub (Feb 29, 2016):
It looks like the core autoconnect tries 3 times, but very quickly also.
@tzapu commented on GitHub (Mar 1, 2016):
well, the thing is it gets the idle status set very fast, so it doesn t attempt anything else...
@tzapu commented on GitHub (Mar 8, 2016):
hi, i ve just made another commit to this, could you please try the github version of WiFiManager and see if anything changed for you?
@buzztiaan commented on GitHub (Aug 6, 2016):
been a while since i tried this
just grabbed latest version through libmanager, and all previous issues seem to not be present :D
closing for now, will open new issue when it happens ;)