Timeout of 0 results in no timeout being registered at all

[fonic]

When specifying a timeout of 0, e.g. swayidle -d -w timeout 0 "echo timeout" resume "echo resume", no timeout is registered at all.

Output:

2025-05-02 17:46:58 - [Line 860] Got timeout
2025-05-02 17:46:58 - [Line 707] Register idle timeout at -1 ms
2025-05-02 17:46:58 - [Line 708] Setup idle
2025-05-02 17:46:58 - [Line 670] Command: echo timeout
2025-05-02 17:46:58 - [Line 713] Setup resume
2025-05-02 17:46:58 - [Line 670] Command: echo resume
2025-05-02 17:46:58 - [Line 1035] No config file found.
2025-05-02 17:46:58 - [Line 459] Using session: /org/freedesktop/login1/session/_31
2025-05-02 17:46:58 - [Line 601] Enable idle timeouts
2025-05-02 17:46:58 - [Line 580] Not registering idle timeout
2025-05-02 17:47:03 - [Line 891] Got SIGTERM

Is that by design? According to the specifications, a timeout of 0 should be possible/valid and should result in immediate idle notification.

[kennylevinsen]

It seems to be a bug introduced by 602d05a, with 0 ending up having a special internal meaning and therefore disallowed from user input.

Another value could be used for that to enable the zero timeout to be valid again. As a workaround, specifying 1 has the same effective result.

should result in immediate idle notification

As soon as possible, which may not be immediate. The durations in the protocol are specified to be minimums.