Skip to content

Conversation

@shikokuchuo
Copy link
Member

Follow up to #703 in addressing #683.

Trying to synchronize solely using nanonext messages is an imperfect art as they travel faster than the HTTP data. In #703 (comment) we add a 50ms delay, which is sufficient in most cases but can still fail occasionally on CI, e.g. at https://github.com/r-lib/httr2/actions/runs/19969784805/job/57271264809.

nanonext messages are only good for indicating data has been sent, not that it has been received. We should instead use later::later_fd() to wait on the data directly on the receiving end. A nanonext message can then request the next batch of data.

@shikokuchuo shikokuchuo marked this pull request as draft December 22, 2025 21:00
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Labels

None yet

Projects

None yet

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

2 participants