Stuck on an issue?
Lightrun Answers was designed to reduce the constant googling that comes with debugging 3rd party libraries. It collects links to all the places you might be looking at while hunting down a tough bug.
And, if you’re still stuck at the end, we’re happy to hop on a call to see how we can help out.
Match-maker: RoomListingData returns wrong number of clients after client reconnect
See original GitHub issueIssue Description
After implementing client reconnect, I noticed that the connections count in the Colyseus monitor is wrong after a client successfully reconnected to a room. For each successful reconnect, the connection count is decremented by one. Reconnecting multiple times can result in negative connection counts. Inspecting the room yields the correct connection count.
Digging through the code showed me that the endpoint simply displays the match-maker query. So I suspect a bug in the match.-maker itself.
Steps to Reproduce
- Connect to a room and go to the Colyseus Monitor: “1 Connection”
- Client loses connection and successfully reconnects using
client.reconnect() - Go to Colyseus Monitor again: “0 Connections” but the room still exists
- Click on the room: “1 Connection” (which is correct)
Context
Trying to implement client reconnect with the standard procedure as stated in the docs.
Your Environment
- Colyseus Version: 0.14.20
- Colyseus.js Version: 0.14.13
- Colyseus Monitor Version: 0.14.20
- Node.js Version: 14.15.3
- Operating System and version: Linux Mint 20.2 (Kernel 5.8.0)
Issue Analytics
- State:
- Created 2 years ago
- Comments:11 (7 by maintainers)
Top Results From Across the Web
Top Related Medium Post
Top Related StackOverflow Question
Troubleshoot Live Code
Top Related Reddit Thread
Top Related Hackernoon Post
Top Related Tweet
Top Related Dev.to Post
Top Related Hashnode Post
@lpsandaruwan Interesting. We do it like in your first example. That explains it.
Thanks for looking into this @lpsandaruwan
Maybe this behaviour happens on the same scenario as https://github.com/colyseus/colyseus/issues/348#issuecomment-913933140