Codecov Report

All modified and coverable lines are covered by tests ✅

Project coverage is 95.15%. Comparing base(1919728) to head(62be681).
Report is 733 commits behind head on master.

@@           Coverage Diff           @@##           master     #243   +/-   ##=======================================  Coverage   95.15%   95.15%           =======================================  Files          24       24             Lines         867      867           =======================================  Hits          825      825             Misses         42       42

☔ View full report in Codecov by Sentry.
📢 Have feedback on the report?Share it here.

I like the solution
Out of zeal I might not use MQTT as a word but it's just a preference.
Maybe "Broker" is less restrictive and still conveys the information.
@alranel what do you think?

Yes@ubidefeo, I agree! MQTT is not a user-facing concept for Arduino Cloud users, at least for now. It's a protocol used under the hood, so I would not use it in the naming of the hooks.

In my notes I mapped these events that would be useful to expose via API so that they can be exposed in the UI of a device (display, LEDs, buzzer...):

1. configured WiFi network not found
   • "The configured WiFi network is not available: check the SSID you entered"
2. WiFi authentication failed
   • "Failed to authenticate to WiFi: check the password"
3. WiFi is connected but IoT Cloud is not reachable (IP, MQTT down…)
   • "Your Internet connection seems to be down OR the Arduino Cloud might be temporarily unavailable: check your connection"
4. not connected to IoT Cloud / authentication issues
   • "Your device is not correctly provisioned in IoT Cloud: follow the provisioning wizard"
5. not connected to IoT Cloud / failed to subscribe because of thing ID was not found
   • "Configuration issue: check the configuration of your thing in IoT Cloud"
6. not connected to Iot Cloud / variables not found
   • "Configuration issue: check the variables configured for this thing in IoT Cloud"

The proposedonPhyFail() hook would cover 1 and 2, but ideally we should have distinct hooks to display a more actionable error message. Is this possible?

The proposedonMqttConnectFail() seems to mix 3 and 4, whileonMqttSubscribeFail() seems to cover 5 and 6.

@aentinger Do you think we can achieve more granularity like this schema?

I see why you'd desire such a fine-grained granularity as it would for extremely user-friendly error messages.

Right now 1) and 2) can not be distinguished as for the AIOTC firmware stack it's simply a failure to connect. One could though distinguish failure case 1) by checking the availability of theWIFI_SSID defined inarduino_secrets.h before running the firmware stack. This could be potentially integrated in the connection handler but is not straight-forward as the other network types (GSM, LoRa) don't have such a discovery step.

Now 3) and 4) unfortunately really can't be distinguished by technical means right now. Maybe there is a way but I'll have to dig very deep in all concerned components (the SSL stack is kind of opaque, maybe its possible to check for "aliveness" of the server via a ping - be aware though that such steps further complicate the connection procedure and might introduce other errors).

. 6) Isn't detectable at all. If your variables don't exist in the cloud there's no error feedback mechanism. It would fall to the cloud to notify the user if properties are sent under a thing-id which have not been configured.

Lastly: I agree, MQTT is a bit technical (but not overly so, it's quite common sense among many people, even if not die-hard programmers). I'm open for suggestions for other callback names though.