Asyncio Testing

[odwdinc]

Not shure if this is the right direction or not thoughts?

[danricho]

I like the idea of asyncio in principal, but I haven't tested it as I'm away from home (and hence the Sim).
Does it mean that the "time" and "attemp" parameters will no longer be necessary?

[odwdinc]

@danricho just thinking about removing attempts,
not 100% on this so left in the pluming for now.
values are set on thread

Python-SimConnect/SimConnect/SimConnect.py

Lines 163 to 165 in 152fa14

	self.timerThread=threading.Thread(target=self._run)
	self.timerThread.daemon=True
	self.timerThread.start()

_run

Python-SimConnect/SimConnect/SimConnect.py

Lines 172 to 175 in 152fa14

	def_run(self):
	whileself.quit==0:
	self.dll.CallDispatch(self.hSimConnect, self.my_dispatch_proc_rd, None)
	time.sleep(.002)

Data is revived by

Python-SimConnect/SimConnect/SimConnect.py

Lines 243 to 249 in 152fa14

	asyncdefget_return_data(self, _Request):
	while_Request.outDataisNone:
	awaitasyncio.sleep(0.01)
	asyncdefget_data(self, _Request):
	self.request_data(_Request)
	awaitself.get_return_data(_Request)

normally attempts are check in the while loop (Line 244) to escape if data is not received in a given time. I don't know if this is still needed or wanted with the new async bits.

With time, it is how long to return cashed data vs new data form the sim.

Python-SimConnect/SimConnect/RequestList.py

Lines 15 to 24 in 152fa14

	@property
	asyncdefvalue(self):
	ifself._deff_test():
	# self.sm.run()
	if (self.LastData+self.time) <millis():
	awaitself.sm.get_data(self)
	self.LastData=millis()
	returnself.outData
	else:
	raiseException(self.definitions[0][0])

[viboux]

Just tested this last version of the asyncio branch for a good 45 min reading altitude/long/lat/baro with another instance giving command and so far very stable and received no None value.

[daheise]

I haven't tested this PR, but I was just considering writing an async wrapper around my calls to Python-SimConnect so I hit fewer cases of needing to handle a None, so I think aync support is a good direction.

[danricho]

I tested this change this morning and have found it flawless.

It enabled me to log flight parameters at a much higher frequency than the old method which essentially hangs until a value is received.

Only limitation I found is the returning of 'None's when I used get() on signals with an index (eg: 'x:1') or the wind direction/speed. But I used request in setup then .value() in the main loop to get around this. I didn't figure out why this happened.

[odwdinc]

so with such a big change how should we make handle the move?
I have been holding off to see if I can think of some way..

[odwdinc]

new sample, added an a to the async vertions of functions to keep backwords code woking.

Python-SimConnect/SimConnect/RequestList.py

Line 19 in c6da1c8

asyncdefavalue(self):

Sample:

fromSimConnectimport*importloggingfromSimConnect.Enumimport*fromtimeimportsleepimportasynciologging.basicConfig(level=logging.DEBUG)
LOGGER=logging.getLogger(__name__)
LOGGER.info("START")
# creat simconnection and pass used user classessm=SimConnect()
aq=AircraftRequests(sm, _time=10, _attemps=10)
Throttle=aq.find('GENERAL_ENG_THROTTLE_LEVER_POSITION:1')
# none async Function still worksprint("Throttle:", Throttle.value)
print("Alt=%f Lat=%f Lon=%f Kohlsman=%.2f"% (
aq.PositionandSpeedData.get('PLANE_ALTITUDE'),
aq.PositionandSpeedData.get('PLANE_LATITUDE'),
aq.PositionandSpeedData.get('PLANE_LONGITUDE'),
aq.FlightInstrumentationData.get('KOHLSMAN_SETTING_HG')
))
# New async FunctionasyncdefPrintData():
# THROTTLE Requestprint("Throttle:", awaitThrottle.avalue)
print("Lat=%f Lon=%f Alt=%f Kohlsman=%.2f"%tuple(
awaitasyncio.gather(
aq.PositionandSpeedData.aget('PLANE_LATITUDE'),
aq.PositionandSpeedData.aget('PLANE_LONGITUDE'),
aq.PositionandSpeedData.aget('PLANE_ALTITUDE'),
aq.FlightInstrumentationData.aget('KOHLSMAN_SETTING_HG')
)
))
asyncio.run(PrintData())
sm.exit()
quit()

[daheise]

My opinion: Follow semantic versioning. If this is a breaking change to old code, increment the major version number. It's on us as library users if we failed to pin the version correctly.

Unless there's a good reason to maintain both versions of the functions, don't.

[danricho]

I do agree that library users should be managing library versions and that we shouldn't keep both versions side by side due to maintenance burden; however I have a few thoughts that might help or at least ease the transition:

• could we call the non-async versions from within the async version so only the core functions nee to be maintained, or
• could we add a deprecated feedback message in the non-async version, with an end-of-support point defined?

I only suggest this as there seems to be quite a number of users now.
Just my 2 cents!

[mracko]

I'd like to report the following bug I've noticed:

The asyncio version doesn't work when getting two SimVars with the same key but different index consecutively. Example:

ui_friendly_dictionary["NAV1_OBS_DEG"] = round(await aq.get("NAV_OBS:1"),0)
ui_friendly_dictionary["NAV2_OBS_DEG"] = round(await aq.get("NAV_OBS:2"),0)

NAV2_OBS_DEG will be getting the NAV_OBS:1 value.

The code works, however, when I introduce a different key inbetween. Like this:

ui_friendly_dictionary["NAV1_OBS_DEG"] = round(await aq.get("NAV_OBS:1"),0)
ui_friendly_dictionary["ADF_CARD_DEG"] = round(await aq.get("ADF_CARD"),0)
ui_friendly_dictionary["NAV2_OBS_DEG"] = round(await aq.get("NAV_OBS:2"),0)

This issue has been introduced with asyncio version and hasn't been a problem before. I'm not sure if it's a problem on my part or it's a bug in general. Unfortunately, my Python skills aren't up to the skills to propose a bug fix.

Thanks!

[danricho]

Hi @mracko, I'd suggest checking the thread in issue #67. I had a similar issue, albeit no with the Asyncio version.

It may or may not be useful, but I thought I'd share and I hope it's useful.

Cheers.

[mracko]

Thanks @danricho. This seems to explain the behavior and I understand the performance reasons. Hopefully, I'll be able to come up with a solution on how to efficiently get the NAV OBSs myself. Again, I'm not a Python pro. :)

[danricho]

If you post your code, I or someone else could help you adjust it to get this working.
;)

[Koseng]

Hi guys,

let's go async ;-)
See #98 for introducing asyncio, including a sync wrapper to stay compatible.

Please test.
In a next step code can be ported to async, and async examples can be added.