What's more efficient, checking for bluetooth connectivity or doing try/catch?

Hello,

I have found an error in my watch face and I am trying to figure what it is and the most efficient way to handle it. If I restart my watch (Venu 2) without bluetooth, the watch face I have that uses complications and displays weather, crashes. So, my assumption (yes, I know) is that when the watch starts without bluetooth and the complication tries to read the weather, the watch face crashes. I thought by using the code:

            wxComp = Complications.getComplication(wxId);
            if (wxComp != null) {
                Complications.subscribeToUpdates(wxId);
            }

I'd handle it, but apparently not.

So, should I try a try/catch or system check for BLE connection every time? Or, is there a better way?

Thanks

FlyFrosty over 1 year ago

I checked for null returns in the complications.value. If null, I requested the info old school style (except for temp which I defined as -99).

jim_m_58 over 1 year ago in reply to FlyFrosty

Consider this:

			 if(ty==Complications.COMPLICATION_TYPE_CURRENT_WEATHER) {
			    compWeather=complicationId.complicationId;		
				Complications.subscribeToUpdates(compWeather);
            	Complications.registerComplicationChangeCallback(method(:compChanged));
            }

Then in compChanged:

	function compChanged(id) {
		if(id.equals(compWeather)) {
            try {
                wdata=Complications.getComplication(id).value;
            } catch(e) {
                wdata=null;
            }
		}
	}

I subscribe. but also register for a callback when the data changes. Which on Android is about every 20 minutes

FlyFrosty over 1 year ago in reply to jim_m_58

So, you'd recommend the try/catch over the if statement? And, null would throw an error with all complications? I know each complication value returns a specific type of information, but I didn't expect 'null' to cause an error to be caught.