|
2013-02-20
, 16:59
|
Posts: 277 |
Thanked: 319 times |
Joined on Jan 2010
|
#1132
|
|
2013-02-20
, 17:04
|
Posts: 1,313 |
Thanked: 2,977 times |
Joined on Jun 2011
@ Finland
|
#1133
|
No, thank you!
I know I've been pestering you for months with this alarm stuff. I hope it has some use for you, too. I know it has for me, thanks again .
|
2013-02-21
, 11:02
|
Posts: 277 |
Thanked: 319 times |
Joined on Jan 2010
|
#1134
|
|
2013-02-21
, 15:11
|
Posts: 133 |
Thanked: 108 times |
Joined on Mar 2012
|
#1135
|
The Following User Says Thank You to bnwg For This Useful Post: | ||
|
2013-02-21
, 15:18
|
Moderator |
Posts: 6,215 |
Thanked: 6,400 times |
Joined on Nov 2011
|
#1136
|
|
2013-02-21
, 16:09
|
Posts: 133 |
Thanked: 108 times |
Joined on Mar 2012
|
#1137
|
bnwg,
For smartsearch i'm pretty sure that it needs time to (re)build its indexes so just when you open Search app even if it was enabled it would need a few minutes to update its index. So I'm not too sure if its a good idea as you'll be getting old information anyway if its not updated.
Checking for WiFi connectivity you can simply write a sh script that pings google every X mins; if it failed then the script itself can disconnect the connection etc... The script can be run as nohup so it would keep running in the background but I'm not too sure if it affects battery consumption too much
|
2013-02-21
, 22:45
|
Posts: 1,313 |
Thanked: 2,977 times |
Joined on Jun 2011
@ Finland
|
#1138
|
I made a few rules including one 8 + 8 min rule and noticed that if you don't press snooze but let the alarm snooze itself, the snooze time is set by the system default, not the value in PM.
I also realised I might have a use for the extra precision with the alarm rule after all. If this is something that is very easy to do, please consider it. The seconds wouldn't have to show in the Ui in any way. Just that the updateRule method would accept second accuracy and that the rule would execute then. If this is at all tricky, forget about it, because it's not important.
The Following User Says Thank You to ajalkane For This Useful Post: | ||
|
2013-02-21
, 22:58
|
Posts: 1,313 |
Thanked: 2,977 times |
Joined on Jun 2011
@ Finland
|
#1139
|
|
2013-02-22
, 07:39
|
Posts: 277 |
Thanked: 319 times |
Joined on Jan 2010
|
#1140
|
I've updated the beta version. I'm trying now to set another option, that should result in the "not pressing snooze" resulting in same snooze value as pressing snooze. I haven't had time to test this at all myself.
It's not that hard to change the behaviour, but here is two problems:
- Even the minute precision is not EXACTLY on that minute. Instead in an effort to preserve battery I am using (heartbeat-based) timer, so that the wakeups try to occur on other wakeups of the device. In practice this means that the real timeout can be as much as 30 seconds later than that was set in condition. In light of that, setting precision by second doesn't make much sense.
- The other problem is that changing the current behavior could have unexpected side-effects. So I wouldn't want to change it without a good reason.
As a workaround, I think the interval time condition could be implemented by doing some ingenious scripting like slarti has done here http://talk.maemo.org/showpost.php?p...postcount=1028
The Following User Says Thank You to slarti For This Useful Post: | ||
My N9/N950 projects: