Add mDNS client #7
Update example
- Loading branch information
commit d0071bde0b4a02503ce3d7fb9b6d97a52f6b1d04
There are no files selected for viewing
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
| Original file line number | Diff line number | Diff line change |
|---|---|---|
|
|
@@ -23,7 +23,11 @@ void main() async { | |
| // other mDNS queries are running elsewhere on the machine. | ||
| await for (SrvResourceRecord srv | ||
| in client.lookup(RRType.srv, ptr.domainName)) { | ||
| // Domain name will be something like "[email protected]._dartobservatory._tcp.local" | ||
| final String bundleId = | ||
| ptr.domainName.substring(0, ptr.domainName.indexOf('@')); | ||
| print( | ||
| 'Dart obvservatory instance found at ${srv.target}:${srv.port} for "$bundleId".'); | ||
dnfield marked this conversation as resolved.
Outdated
Show resolved
Hide resolved
|
||
| } | ||
| } | ||
| client.stop(); | ||
|
|
||
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Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.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.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
more crazy formatting...
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
What would you have it do? The formatter doesn't split string literals, so it has to make the best it can with what you give it. The right answer in most cases is to split the string literal into two adjacent strings and it will then format this better.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
In both cases I would override the preferred line width and not wrap.
Specifically, I would have two line widths. One would be the hard limit. If something doesn't exceed the hard limit, it wouldn't wrap it. If it does, then it would wrap it to the soft limit.
Also, if these exceeded the wrap limit, in the line 27 case I would wrap inside the expression, not after the
=(i.e. do what it would do with a trailing comma), and in the line 29 case I would either split the string (why should the formatter not do that? IMHO it should totally do that, especially if the string has a literal\nin it! that's a perfect place to wrap. Not that it helps here), or I would similarly act as if there was a trailing comma.There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Well FWIW, I've now split the string manually into two so this looks a little better.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
That's a reasonable preference. I personally go back and forth on whether splitting around
=is useful. Some LHS sides get really long (think calling very long setters), so it turns out to be useful and more users seem to be happy with the results.One of the goals of the formatter is to be "reversible" as much as possible. So if you:
Make a change to some code.
Format it.
Undo the change.
Format it again.
You get back to the original code. The formatter doesn't unsplit adjacent strings, and I think that's a good thing — users often use adjacent strings because they specifically want the split to be right where they put it. So if the formatter did split strings then in step 2 above, it could split a string, but then in step 4, it wouldn't put it back together again.