Paul Sokolovsky

> This actually happens fairly frequently (couple of times per week) for me since I reboot my broker after installing updates, etc. So, please go to creators of your broker...

> That's all I'm saying. Yes, you're saying that, but you don't listen to what others saying. It's impossible to make something "robust" for everyone. For example, disk on on...

> Uh........there's already a patch (right here) to make it much more robust. You're again trying to miss 2 important points communicated above: 1. There's nothing to patch - if...

Ok, so 808e0bba0c7cb932c9feaeab45f223ae7955bd79 adds "missing documentation" for umqtt.robust. Love it or not, that's what it is, and it's as perfect as MQTT (real MQTT, not sandbox variety of MQTT) allows...

Unfortunately, there's always a backlog of documentation work, starting with the main MicroPython docs (which are still well ahead of docs for the competing projects (MCU scripting languages), YMMV).

> @pfalcon why didn't you make a PR for that documentation change Because the documentation patch describes the requirements which were set for this modules, how it has been always...

> In any event, the current umqtt.robust implementation is broken in that it should check if the return value of the reconnect: Ah, right, you mean reconnect(). Yep, we can...

> I suspect it's all related to console comms but it's hard to say what's going on. Exactly, as you don't say what you use, it's hard to say what's...

> said I'm on Fedora 33, Python 3.9.1, KDE Konsole over X11 Right, please consider a brain-fart. But for modern short attention-span humans, like myself, I'm going to edit the...

As a quick reply, my work environment is Ubuntu MATE with MATE Terminal (1.24 as of now, but different version over last few years). Also tested with Gnome Terminal (of...