You signed in with another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You signed out in another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You switched accounts on another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.Dismiss alert
I have noticed a behaviour that I did not expect, but that very well be the intended behaviour - or it is a bug. I cannot tell.
When I have a block that has both interval (say 60) and signal (say 10) set, I see this behaviour:
starttime => update
starttime+60 =>update
starttime+120 =>update
send signal 10 at startime +130 => update
starttime +180 => NO UPDATE
starttime +240 => update
So when the block is updated via a signal, one round of updating via the interval seems to be skipped - this means that when a block has been updated via interval and immediately is updated again via a signal it is only updated again after 2*interval.
Is this the intended behaviour?
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered:
dllud
pushed a commit
to dllud/i3blocks
that referenced
this issue
Jan 12, 2024
Hi,
I have noticed a behaviour that I did not expect, but that very well be the intended behaviour - or it is a bug. I cannot tell.
When I have a block that has both interval (say 60) and signal (say 10) set, I see this behaviour:
starttime => update
starttime+60 =>update
starttime+120 =>update
send signal 10 at startime +130 => update
starttime +180 => NO UPDATE
starttime +240 => update
So when the block is updated via a signal, one round of updating via the interval seems to be skipped - this means that when a block has been updated via interval and immediately is updated again via a signal it is only updated again after 2*interval.
Is this the intended behaviour?
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: