Improve passing of ui_update.chartOptions to clients to prevent memory growing unrestricted#2129
Open
colinl wants to merge 1 commit into
Open
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
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Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.Suggestions cannot be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.
Description
Currently if a sequence of msg.ui_update.chartOptions is sent to a chart these are pushed into an array so they can be replayed when required. This means that the memory usage can increase without bound if (for example) the user sends the chartOptions property with every sample. The ideal solution would be to import lodash.merge in the client code so that the client can keep a merged set of options as does the client, but the overheads of this are best avoided if possible.
This PR solves the problem by always sending the full merged set of chartOptions to the client whenever the message includes ui_update.chartOptions, which does slightly increase the comms overhead but this is unlikely ever to be significant. It also simplifies the code in the client.
Related Issue(s)
Closes #2012
See also PR #2013 to which this PR provides an alternative.
Checklist
flowforge.yml?FlowFuse/helmto update ConfigMap TemplateFlowFuse/CloudProjectto update values for Staging/ProductionLabels
area:migrationlabel