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.

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

[ota] OTA requestor does not try another OTA provider when the current is down #22233

Open
Damian-Nordic opened this issue Aug 29, 2022 · 6 comments
Labels
stale Stale issue or PR V1.X

Comments

@Damian-Nordic
Copy link
Contributor

Problem

https://github.com/project-chip/connectedhomeip/pull/16153/files has added the logic to re-try QueryImage in the case of timeout (which may be due to a lost CASE session), but there's no code to try another OTA Provider if the currently selected one is down or cannot be discovered at all 0. That is, OTA requestor will try another OTA Provider only after the query period (for example, 24 hours).

The behavior seems to be allowed by the spec (see below), but I wonder if it's intuitive and user-friendly:

Handling errors from QueryImage Command
(...)
If the OTA Requestor is still attempting to discover an OTA Update, it MAY choose to attempt a QueryImage command on a different OTA Provider in its OTA Provider List

Proposed Solution

Pick another OTA provider on connection failure.

@Damian-Nordic
Copy link
Contributor Author

@tcarmelveilleux @carol-apple @selissia I'm not sure what's severity of this. IMHO it's not critical, but I would love to hear your opinions.

@doublemis1
Copy link
Contributor

@tcarmelveilleux
Copy link
Contributor

@Damian-Nordic I'd say this issue is a matter of choice, but if integrators "blindly" use the SDK version, without doing sufficient failure trials, they may not realize that they have a less effective strategy

@Damian-Nordic
Copy link
Contributor Author

Thanks, test plan issue created: https://github.com/CHIP-Specifications/chip-test-plans/issues/2148, so I'll mark this as post 1.0.

@stale
Copy link

stale bot commented Mar 7, 2023

This issue has been automatically marked as stale because it has not had recent activity. It will be closed if no further activity occurs.

1 similar comment
@stale
Copy link

stale bot commented Oct 15, 2023

This issue has been automatically marked as stale because it has not had recent activity. It will be closed if no further activity occurs.

@stale stale bot added the stale Stale issue or PR label Oct 15, 2023
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
stale Stale issue or PR V1.X
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

3 participants