If you have not read the post immediately before this one, please read that one first.
I have thought about this a bit more and I realized that I do not know if a ping with timeout is even available on this platform. If it is not, then I guess end of discussion. So for now I will assume it is.
I thought about the code change and I think it would be really simple. There is of course the need for the UI to get the pingIP. Other than that, the following pseudo-code should work, a one line change:
replace line 1448
if(WiFi.status() == WL_CONNECTED) {
with
if((WiFi.status() == WL_CONNECTED) && (!havePingIP || pingSucceeds()) ) {
and that is it. If havePingIP is false then !havePingIP is true so the || is true thus the test resolves to WiFi.status check as current. If havePingIP is true then !havePingIP is false and the overall test requires both WiFi.status and pingSucceeds to be true else it starts the failure timer. Generally both will be true. If one of the two fails, it is very likely to be the one to continue to fail. But even if one fails and then after 60 seconds it is the other that fails, it is still worth a reboot. Also, if one fails and then later both succeed the no need for reboot. I really do not think the logic needs to be any more complicated.
It is probably worth having a boolean variable havePingIP as to whether the pingIP has been defined since this is in the main loop. I have no idea how on this platform you can test a ping with timeout so as a placeholder I merely used pingSucceeds() for that.
I trust this makes sense and you see it is a rather straightforward modification. Thanks again for your consideration. I am trying to make this as easy and well thought out as I can. If you see any issues, I would love to try to resolve them.
ETA: A way to make this safer still, when the user submits a ping IP address, before it is saved, a test ping is issued. If it succeeds then it is saved. If it fails, it is not saved and the user is informed.
