[erlang-questions] gen_statem: next event internal and reply

[Raimo Niskanen]

On Tue, Aug 06, 2019 at 12:22:29PM +0100, Peter Morgan wrote:
> Hi Raimo,
> 
> > On 31 Jul 2019, at 13:36, Raimo Niskanen <raimo+erlang-questions@REDACTED> wrote:
> > 
> > I have checked in a branch in the daily builds that clarifies
> > the documentation for transition_option() to be more explicit
> > about when replies are sent, and some other stuff.
> > 
> > / Raimo
> > 
> 
> 
> Thanks very much for this. Making the documented reply order more explicit would be perfect. I found a couple of instances of:

I try to think of every question as a potential bug report on the
documentation.


> 
> {keep_state_and_data, [nei(work), {reply, From, ok}]};
> 
> and:
> 
> {keep_state_and_data, [{reply, From, ok}, nei(work)]};
> 
> Where the _assumption_ was that the order would be honoured (it is a list!). In the majority of cases that I’ve found it didn't matter - in one case the call was immediately followed by a terminate_child on that process, causing (sometimes) an unclean shutdown.

I/We was/were thinking about letting Actions be a map() instead, and in
hindsight that may have been better, but at that time it felt
too esoteric...


> 
> BTW - We’ve not seen any async timer related issues in 22 that we were seeing in earlier 21s. Thanks again for your speedy help on that issue too, much appreciated!

Glad to hear!  Thank you for the update!


> 
> Regards,
> Peter.
> 

-- 

/ Raimo Niskanen, Erlang/OTP, Ericsson AB