Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

Sign up for GitHub

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Jump to bottom

[change] Do we really need two routes for the same websocket consumer? #173

Closed
nemesifier opened this issue Apr 6, 2023 · 0 comments · Fixed by #174
Closed

[change] Do we really need two routes for the same websocket consumer? #173

nemesifier opened this issue Apr 6, 2023 · 0 comments · Fixed by #174
Assignees
@Aryamanz29
Labels
enhancement

Comments

@nemesifier
Copy link
Member

In #171 we fixed a bug which was preventing a non-admin view to connect to the websocket consumer to receive updates regarding a topology.

A new route was added due to how the JS is currently written, but I am wondering if this additional route is really necessary and whether it wouldn't be better to use one route in both places (admin and frontend)?
Aryamanz29 added a commit that referenced this issue Apr 9, 2023
@Aryamanz29
[change] Used single websocket route for both admin and non-admin views
b29c31a 
#173

Closes #173
@Aryamanz29 Aryamanz29 self-assigned this Apr 9, 2023
@Aryamanz29 Aryamanz29 mentioned this issue Apr 9, 2023
Merged
nemesifier pushed a commit that referenced this issue Apr 13, 2023
@Aryamanz29
[change] Used single websocket route for both admin and non-admin #173
6c2d8a4 
Closes #173
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Assignees

@Aryamanz29 Aryamanz29

Labels
enhancement
Projects
OpenWISP Contributor's Board
Archived in project
OpenWISP Priorities for next releases
Archived in project
Milestone
No milestone
2 participants
@nemesifier @Aryamanz29