Sorry you've hit problems - but wow, thanks for tracking this down so far.
Do you have a simple example that'll reproduce this? And do you know what the value of d is when it does try and force-close the socket? I'd have hoped that the +IPD data would be trapped before it ever got to the send call.
I'd be a little worried about leaving the at.unregister('> '); in there, since it pretty mucth guarantees that the data packet will never be sent afterwards - but if there's something specific in d that can be ignored, we should definitely do that (although it could be a sign of a problem in the handling of +IPD data).
Espruino is a JavaScript interpreter for low-power Microcontrollers. This site is both a support community for Espruino and a place to share what you are working on.
Sorry you've hit problems - but wow, thanks for tracking this down so far.
Do you have a simple example that'll reproduce this? And do you know what the value of
d
is when it does try and force-close the socket? I'd have hoped that the+IPD
data would be trapped before it ever got to thesend
call.I'd be a little worried about leaving the
at.unregister('> ');
in there, since it pretty mucth guarantees that the data packet will never be sent afterwards - but if there's something specific ind
that can be ignored, we should definitely do that (although it could be a sign of a problem in the handling of+IPD
data).