2016 Ericsson AB. All Rights Reserved. Licensed under the Apache License, Version 2.0 (the "License"); you may not use this file except in compliance with the License. You may obtain a copy of the License at http://www.apache.org/licenses/LICENSE-2.0 Unless required by applicable law or agreed to in writing, software distributed under the License is distributed on an "AS IS" BASIS, WITHOUT WARRANTIES OR CONDITIONS OF ANY KIND, either express or implied. See the License for the specific language governing permissions and limitations under the License. gen_statem Behaviour statem.xml

This section is to be read with the gen_statem(3) manual page in STDLIB, where all interface functions and callback functions are described in detail.

This is a new behaviour in OTP-19.0. It has been thoroughly reviewed, is stable enough to be used by at least two heavy OTP applications, and is here to stay. But depending on user feedback, we do not expect but might find it necessary to make minor not backwards compatible changes into OTP-20.0, so its state can be designated as "not quite experimental"...

Event Driven State Machines

Established Automata theory does not deal much with how a state transition is triggered, but in general assumes that the output is a function of the input (and the state) and that they are some kind of values.

For an Event Driven State Machine the input is an event that triggers a state transition and the output is actions executed during the state transition. It can analogously to the mathematical model of a Finite State Machine be described as a set of relations of the form: 

State(S) x Event(E) -> Actions(A), State(S')

These relations are interpreted as meaning:

If we are in state S and event E occurs, we are to perform actions A and make a transition to state S'.

Note that S' may be equal to S.

Since A and S' depend only on S and E the kind of state machine described here is a Mealy Machine. (See for example the corresponding Wikipedia article)

Like most gen_ behaviours, gen_statem keeps a server Data besides the state. This and the fact that there is no restriction on the number of states (assuming enough virtual machine memory) or on the number of distinct input events actually makes a state machine implemented with this behaviour Turing complete. But it feels mostly like an Event Driven Mealy Machine.

Callback Modes

The gen_statem behaviour supports two different callback modes. In the mode state_functions, the state transition rules are written as a number of Erlang functions, which conform to the following convention: 

StateName(EventType, EventContent, Data) ->
    .. code for actions here ...
    {next_state, NewStateName, NewData}.

In the mode handle_event_function there is only one Erlang function that implements all state transition rules: 

handle_event(EventType, EventContent, State, Data) ->
    .. code for actions here ...
    {next_state, State', Data'}

Both these modes allow other return tuples that you can find in the reference manual. These other return tuples can for example stop the machine, execute state transition actions on the machine engine itself and send replies.

Choosing Callback Mode

The two callback modes gives different possibilities and restrictions, but one goal remains: you want to handle all possible combinations of events and states.

You can for example do this by focusing on one state at the time and for every state ensure that all events are handled, or the other way around focus on one event at the time and ensure that it is handled in every state, or mix these strategies.

With state_functions you are restricted to use atom only states, and the gen_statem engine dispatches on state name for you. This encourages the callback module to gather the implementation of all event actions particular to one state in the same place in the code hence focus on one state at the time.

This mode fits well when you have a regular state diagram like the ones in this chapter that describes all events and actions belonging to a state visually around that state, and each state has its unique name.

With handle_event_function you are free to mix strategies as you like because all events and states are handled in the the same callback function.

This mode works equally well when you want to focus on one event at the time or when you want to focus on one state at the time, but the handle_event/4 function quickly grows too large to handle without introducing dispatching.

The mode enables the use of non-atom states for example complex states or even hiearchical states. If, for example, a state diagram is largely alike for the client and for the server side of a protocol; then you can have a state {StateName,server} or {StateName,client} and since you do the dispatching yourself you make StateName decide where in the code to handle most events in the state. The second element of the tuple is then used to select whether to handle special client side or server side events.

Example

This is an example starting off as equivalent to the the example in the gen_fsm behaviour description. In later chapters additions and tweaks are made using features in gen_statem that gen_fsm does not have. At the end of this section you can find the example again with all the added features.

A door with a code lock can be viewed as a state machine. Initially, the door is locked. Anytime someone presses a button, this generates an event. Depending on what buttons have been pressed before, the sequence so far can be correct, incomplete, or wrong.

If it is correct, the door is unlocked for 10 seconds (10000 ms). If it is incomplete, we wait for another button to be pressed. If it is is wrong, we start all over, waiting for a new button sequence.

Code lock state diagram

We can implement such a code lock state machine using gen_statem with the following callback module:

gen_statem:start_link({local,?NAME}, ?MODULE, Code, []). button(Digit) -> gen_statem:cast(?NAME, {button,Digit}). init(Code) -> do_lock(), Data = #{code => Code, remaining => Code}, {?CALLBACK_MODE,locked,Data}. locked( cast, {button,Digit}, #{code := Code, remaining := Remaining} = Data) -> case Remaining of [Digit] -> do_unlock(), {next_state,open,Data#{remaining := Code},10000}; [Digit|Rest] -> % Incomplete {next_state,locked,Data#{remaining := Rest}}; _Wrong -> {next_state,locked,Data#{remaining := Code}} end. open(timeout, _, Data) -> do_lock(), {next_state,locked,Data}; open(cast, {button,_}, Data) -> do_lock(), {next_state,locked,Data}. do_lock() -> io:format("Lock~n", []). do_unlock() -> io:format("Unlock~n", []). terminate(_Reason, State, _Data) -> State =/= locked andalso do_lock(), ok. code_change(_Vsn, State, Data, _Extra) -> {?CALLBACK_MODE,State,Data}. ]]>

The code is explained in the next sections.

Starting gen_statem

In the example in the previous section, the gen_statem is started by calling code_lock:start_link(Code):

gen_statem:start_link({local,?NAME}, ?MODULE, Code, []). ]]>

start_link calls the function gen_statem:start_link/4 which spawns and links to a new process; a gen_statem.

The first argument, {local,?NAME}, specifies the name. In this case, the gen_statem is locally registered as code_lock through the macro ?NAME.

If the name is omitted, the gen_statem is not registered. Instead its pid must be used. The name can also be given as {global,Name}, in which case the gen_statem is registered using global:register_name/2.

The second argument, ?MODULE, is the name of the callback module, that is; the module where the callback functions are located, which is this module.

The interface functions (start_link/1 and button/1) are located in the same module as the callback functions (init/1, locked/3, and open/3). It is normally good programming practice to have the client side and the server side code contained in one module.

The third argument, Code, is a list of digits that is the correct unlock code which is passsed to the callback function init/1.

The fourth argument, [], is a list of options. See the gen_statem:start_link/3 manual page for available options.

If name registration succeeds, the new gen_statem process calls the callback function code_lock:init(Code). This function is expected to return {CallbackMode,State,Data}, where CallbackMode selects callback module state function mode, in this case state_functions through the macro ?CALLBACK_MODE that is; each state has got its own handler function. State is the initial state of the gen_statem, in this case locked; assuming the door is locked to begin with. Data is the internal server data of the gen_statem. Here the server data is a map with the key code that stores the correct button sequence and the key remaining that stores the remaining correct button sequence (the same as the code to begin with).

do_lock(), Data = #{code => Code, remaining => Code}, {?CALLBACK_MODE,locked,Data}. ]]>

gen_statem:start_link is synchronous. It does not return until the gen_statem has been initialized and is ready to receive events.

gen_statem:start_link must be used if the gen_statem is part of a supervision tree, that is; started by a supervisor. There is another function; gen_statem:start to start a standalone gen_statem, that is; a gen_statem that is not part of a supervision tree.

Events and Handling them

The function notifying the code lock about a button event is implemented using gen_statem:cast/2:

gen_statem:cast(?NAME, {button,Digit}). ]]>

The first argument is the name of the gen_statem and must agree with the name used to start it so therefore we use the same macro ?NAME as when starting. {button,Digit} is the actual event content.

The event is made into a message and sent to the gen_statem. When the event is received, the gen_statem calls StateName(cast, Event, Data), which is expected to return a tuple {next_state,NewStateName,NewData}. StateName is the name of the current state and NewStateName is the name of the next state to go to. NewData is a new value for the server data of the gen_statem.

case Remaining of [Digit] -> % Complete do_unlock(), {next_state,open,Data#{remaining := Code},10000}; [Digit|Rest] -> % Incomplete {next_state,locked,Data#{remaining := Rest}}; [_|_] -> % Wrong {next_state,locked,Data#{remaining := Code}} end. open(timeout, _, Data) -> do_lock(), {next_state,locked,Data}; open(cast, {button,_}, Data) -> do_lock(), {next_state,locked,Data}. ]]>

If the door is locked and a button is pressed, the pressed button is compared with the next correct button and, depending on the result, the door is either unlocked and the gen_statem goes to state open, or the door remains in state locked.

If the pressed button is incorrect the server data restarts from the start of the code sequence.

In state open any button locks the door since any event cancels the event timer so we will not get a timeout event after a button event.

Event Time-Outs

When a correct code has been given, the door is unlocked and the following tuple is returned from locked/2:

10000 is a time-out value in milliseconds. After this time, that is; 10 seconds, a time-out occurs. Then, StateName(timeout, 10000, Data) is called. The time-out occurs when the door has been in state open for 10 seconds. After that the door is locked again:

do_lock(), {next_state,locked,Data}; ]]>
All State Events

Sometimes an event can arrive in any state of the gen_statem. It is convenient to handle these in a common state handler function that all state functions call for events not specific to the state.

Let's introduce a code_length/0 function that returns the length of the correct code (that should not be sensitive to reveal...). We'll dispatch all events that are not state specific to the common function handle_event/3.

gen_statem:call(?NAME, code_length). ... locked(...) -> ... ; locked(EventType, EventContent, Data) -> handle_event(EventType, EventContent, Data). ... open(...) -> ... ; open(EventType, EventContent, Data) -> handle_event(EventType, EventContent, Data). handle_event({call,From}, code_length, #{code := Code} = Data) -> {keep_state,Data,[{reply,From,length(Code)}]}. ]]>

This example uses gen_statem:call/2 which waits for a reply from the server. The reply is sent with a {reply,From,Reply} tuple in an action list in the {keep_state,...} tuple that retains the current state.

One Event Handler

If you use the mode handle_event_function all events are handled in handle_event/4 and we may (but do not have to) use an event-centered approach where we dispatch on event first and then state:

case State of locked -> case maps:get(remaining, Data) of [Digit] -> % Complete do_unlock(), {next_state,open,Data#{remaining := Code},10000}; [Digit|Rest] -> % Incomplete {keep_state,Data#{remaining := Rest}}; [_|_] -> % Wrong {keep_state,Data#{remaining := Code}} end; open -> do_lock(), {next_state,locked,Data} end; handle_event(timeout, _, open, Data) -> do_lock(), {next_state,locked,Data}. ... ]]>
Stopping
In a Supervision Tree

If the gen_statem is part of a supervision tree, no stop function is needed. The gen_statem is automatically terminated by its supervisor. Exactly how this is done is defined by a shutdown strategy set in the supervisor.

If it is necessary to clean up before termination, the shutdown strategy must be a time-out value and the gen_statem must in the init/1 function set itself to trap exit signals by calling process_flag(trap_exit, true). When ordered to shutdown, the gen_statem then calls the callback function terminate(shutdown, State, Data):

process_flag(trap_exit, true), do_lock(), ... ]]>

In this example we let the terminate/3 function lock the door if it is open so we do not accidentally leave the door open when the supervision tree terminates.

State =/= locked andalso do_lock(), ok. ]]>
Standalone gen_statem

If the gen_statem is not part of a supervision tree, it can be stopped using gen_statem:stop, preferably through an API function:

gen_statem:stop(?NAME). ]]>

This makes the gen_statem call the terminate/3 callback function just like for a supervised server and waits for the process to terminate.

Actions

In the first chapters we mentioned actions as a part of the general state machine model, and these actions are implemented with the code the gen_statem callback module executes in an event handling callback function before returning to the gen_statem engine.

There are more specific state transition actions that a callback function can order the gen_statem engine to do after the callback function return. These are ordered by returning a list of actions in the return tuple from the callback function. These state transition actions affect the gen_statem engine itself. They can:

Postpone the current event. Hibernate the gen_statem. Start an event timeout. Reply to a caller. Generate the next event to handle.

We have mentioned the event timeout and replying to a caller in the example above. An example of event postponing comes in later in this chapter. See the reference manual for details. You can for example actually reply to several callers and generate multiple next events to handle.

Event Types

So far we have mentioned a few event types. Events of all types are handled in the same callback function, for a given state, and the function gets EventType and EventContent as arguments.

Here is the complete list of event types and where they come from:

cast Generated by gen_statem:cast. {call,From} Generated by gen_statem:call where From is the reply address to use when replying either through the state transition action {reply,From,Msg} or by calling gen_statem:reply. info Generated by any regular process message sent to the gen_statem process. timeout Generated by the state transition action {timeout,Time,EventContent} (or its short form Time) timer timing out. internal Generated by the state transition action {next_event,internal,EventContent}. In fact all event types above can be generated using {next_event,EventType,EventContent}.
State Timeouts

The timeout event generated by the state transition action {timeout,Time,EventContent} is an event timeout, that is; if an event arrives the timer is cancelled. You get either an event or a timeout but not both.

Often you want a timer to not be cancelled by any event or you want to start a timer in one state and respond to the timeout in another. This can be accomplished with a regular erlang timer: erlang:start_timer.

Looking at the example in this chapter so far; using the gen_statem event timer has the consequence that if a button event is generated while in the open state, the timeout is cancelled and the button event is delivered. Therefore we chose to lock the door if this happended.

Suppose we do not want a button to lock the door, instead we want to ignore button events in the open state. Then we start a timer when entering the open state and wait for it to expire while ignoring button events:

case Remaining of [Digit] -> do_unlock(), Tref = erlang:start_timer(10000, self(), lock), {next_state,open,Data#{remaining := Code, timer := Tref}}; ... open(info, {timeout,Tref,lock}, #{timer := Tref} = Data) -> do_lock(), {next_state,locked,Data}; open(cast, {button,_}, Data) -> {keep_state,Data}; ... ]]>

If you need to cancel a timer due to some other event you can use erlang:cancel_timer(Tref). Note that a timeout message can not arrive after this, unless you have postponed it (see the next section) before, so make sure you do not accidentally postpone such messages.

Another way to cancel a timer is to not cancel it, but instead to ignore it if it arrives in a state where it is known to be late.

Postponing Events

If you want to ignore a particular event in the current state and handle it in a future state, you can postpone the event. A postponed event is retried after the state has changed i.e OldState =/= NewState.

Postponing is ordered by the state transition action postpone.

In this example, instead of ignoring button events while in the open state we can postpone them and they will be queued and later handled in the locked state:

{keep_state,Data,[postpone]}; ... ]]>

The fact that a postponed event is only retried after a state change translates into a requirement on the event and state space: if you have a choice between storing a state data item in the State or in the Data; should a change in the item value affect which events that are handled, then this item ought to be part of the state.

What you want to avoid is that you maybe much later decide to postpone an event in one state and by misfortune it is never retried because the code only changes the Data but not the State.

Fuzzy State Diagrams

It is not uncommon that a state diagram does not specify how to handle events that are not illustrated in a particular state in the diagram. Hopefully this is described in an associated text or from the context.

Possible actions may be; ignore as in drop the event (maybe log it) or deal with the event in some other state as in postpone it.

Selective Receive

Erlang's selective receive statement is often used to describe simple state machine examples in straightforward Erlang code. Here is a possible implementation of the first example:

spawn( fun () -> true = register(?NAME, self()), do_lock(), locked(Code, Code) end). button(Digit) -> ?NAME ! {button,Digit}. locked(Code, [Digit|Remaining]) -> receive {button,Digit} when Remaining =:= [] -> do_unlock(), open(Code); {button,Digit} -> locked(Code, Remaining); {button,_} -> locked(Code, Code) end. open(Code) -> receive after 10000 -> do_lock(), locked(Code, Code) end. do_lock() -> io:format("Locked~n", []). do_unlock() -> io:format("Open~n", []). ]]>

The selective receive in this case causes open to implicitly postpone any events to the locked state.

A selective receive can not be used from a gen_statem behaviour just as for any gen_* behavior since the receive statement is within the gen_* engine itself. It has to be there because all sys compatible behaviours must respond to system messages and therefore do that in their engine receive loop, passing non-system messages to the callback module.

The state transition action postpone is designed to be able to model selective receives. A selective receive implicitly postpones any not received events, but the postpone state transition action explicitly postpones one received event.

Other than that both mechanisms have got the same theoretical time and memory complexity, while the selective receive language construct has got smaller constant factors.

Self Generated Events

It may be beneficial in some cases to be able to generate events to your own state machine. This can be done with the state transition action {next_event,EventType,EventContent}.

You can generate events of any existing type, but the internal type can only be generated through the next_event action and hence can not come from an external source, so you can be certain that an internal event is an event from your state machine to itself.

One example of using self generated events may be when you have a state machine specification that uses state entry actions. That you could code using a dedicated function to do the state transition. But if you want that code to be visible besides the other state logic you can insert an internal event that does the entry actions. This has the same unfortunate consequence as using state transition functions that everywhere you go to the state in question you will have to explicitly insert the internal event or use state transition function.

Here is an implementation of entry actions using internal events with content enter utilizing a helper function enter/3 for state entry:

process_flag(trap_exit, true), Data = #{code => Code}, enter(?CALLBACK_MODE, locked, Data). ... locked(internal, enter, _Data) -> do_lock(), {keep_state,Data#{remaining => Code}}; locked( cast, {button,Digit}, #{code := Code, remaining := Remaining} = Data) -> case Remaining of [Digit] -> enter(next_state, open, Data); ... open(internal, enter, _Data) -> Tref = erlang:start_timer(10000, self(), lock), do_unlock(), {keep_state,Data#{timer => Tref}}; open(info, {timeout,Tref,lock}, #{timer := Tref} = Data) -> enter(next_state, locked, Data); ... enter(Tag, State, Data) -> {Tag,State,Data,[{next_event,internal,enter}]}. ]]>
Example Revisited

Here is the example after all mentioned modifications and some more utilizing the entry actions, which deserves a new state diagram:

Code lock state diagram revisited

Note that this state diagram does not specify how to handle a button event in the state open, so you will have to read some other place that is here that unspecified events shall be ignored as in not consumed but handled in some other state. Nor does it show that the code_length/0 call shall be handled in every state.

Callback Mode: state_functions

Using state functions:

gen_statem:start_link({local,?NAME}, ?MODULE, Code, []). stop() -> gen_statem:stop(?NAME). button(Digit) -> gen_statem:cast(?NAME, {button,Digit}). code_length() -> gen_statem:call(?NAME, code_length). init(Code) -> process_flag(trap_exit, true), Data = #{code => Code}, enter(?CALLBACK_MODE, locked, Data). locked(internal, enter, #{code := Code} = Data) -> do_lock(), {keep_state,Data#{remaining => Code}}; locked( cast, {button,Digit}, #{code := Code, remaining := Remaining} = Data) -> case Remaining of [Digit] -> % Complete enter(next_state, open, Data); [Digit|Rest] -> % Incomplete {keep_state,Data#{remaining := Rest}}; [_|_] -> % Wrong {keep_state,Data#{remaining := Code}} end; locked(EventType, EventContent, Data) -> handle_event(EventType, EventContent, Data). open(internal, enter, Data) -> Tref = erlang:start_timer(10000, self(), lock), do_unlock(), {keep_state,Data#{timer => Tref}}; open(info, {timeout,Tref,lock}, #{timer := Tref} = Data) -> enter(next_state, locked, Data); open(cast, {button,_}, _) -> {keep_state_and_data,[postpone]}; open(EventType, EventContent, Data) -> handle_event(EventType, EventContent, Data). handle_event({call,From}, code_length, #{code := Code}) -> {keep_state_and_data,[{reply,From,length(Code)}]}. enter(Tag, State, Data) -> {Tag,State,Data,[{next_event,internal,enter}]}. do_lock() -> io:format("Locked~n", []). do_unlock() -> io:format("Open~n", []). terminate(_Reason, State, _Data) -> State =/= locked andalso do_lock(), ok. code_change(_Vsn, State, Data, _Extra) -> {?CALLBACK_MODE,State,Data}. ]]>
Callback Mode: handle_event_function

What to change to use one handle_event/4 function. Here a clean first-dispatch-on-event approach does not work that well due to the generated entry actions:

do_lock(), {keep_state,Data#{remaining => Code}}; handle_event( cast, {button,Digit}, locked, #{code := Code, remaining := Remaining} = Data) -> case Remaining of [Digit] -> % Complete enter(next_state, open, Data); [Digit|Rest] -> % Incomplete {keep_state,Data#{remaining := Rest}}; [_|_] -> % Wrong {keep_state,Data#{remaining := Code}} end; %% %% State: open handle_event(internal, enter, open, Data) -> Tref = erlang:start_timer(10000, self(), lock), do_unlock(), {keep_state,Data#{timer => Tref}}; handle_event(info, {timeout,Tref,lock}, open, #{timer := Tref} = Data) -> enter(next_state, locked, Data); handle_event(cast, {button,_}, open, _) -> {keep_state_and_data,[postpone]}; %% %% Any state handle_event({call,From}, code_length, _State, #{code := Code}) -> {keep_state_and_data,[{reply,From,length(Code)}]}. ... ]]>

Note that postponing buttons from the locked state to the open state feels like the wrong thing to do for a code lock, but it at least illustrates event postponing.

Complex State

The callback mode handle_event_function enables using a non-atom state as described in Callback Modes, for example a complex state term like a tuple.

One reason to use this is when you have a state item that affects the event handling in particular when combining that with postponing events. Let us complicate the previous example by introducing a configurable lock button (this is the state item in question) that in the open state immediately locks the door, and an API function set_lock_button/1 to set the lock button.

Suppose now that we call set_lock_button while the door is open, and have already postponed a button event that up until now was not the lock button; the sensible thing might be to say that the button was pressed too early so it should not be recognized as the lock button, but then it might be surprising that a button event that now is the lock button event arrives (as retried postponed) immediately after the state transits to locked.

So let us make the button/1 function synchronous by using gen_statem:call, and still postpone its events in the open state. Then a call to button/1 during the open state will not return until the state transits to locked since it is there the event is handled and the reply is sent.

If now one process calls set_lock_button/1 to change the lock button while some other process hangs in button/1 with the new lock button it could be expected that the hanging lock button call immediately takes effect and locks the lock. Therefore we make the current lock button a part of the state so when we change the lock button the state will change and all postponed events will be retried.

We define the state as {StateName,LockButton} where StateName is as before and LockButton is the current lock button:

gen_statem:start_link( {local,?NAME}, ?MODULE, {Code,LockButton}, []). stop() -> gen_statem:stop(?NAME). button(Digit) -> gen_statem:call(?NAME, {button,Digit}). code_length() -> gen_statem:call(?NAME, code_length). set_lock_button(LockButton) -> gen_statem:call(?NAME, {set_lock_button,LockButton}). init({Code,LockButton}) -> process_flag(trap_exit, true), Data = #{code => Code}, enter(?CALLBACK_MODE, {locked,LockButton}, Data, []). %% State: locked handle_event(internal, enter, {locked,_}, #{code := Code} = Data) -> do_lock(), {keep_state,Data#{remaining => Code}}; handle_event( {call,From}, {button,Digit}, {locked,LockButton}, #{code := Code, remaining := Remaining} = Data) -> case Remaining of [Digit] -> % Complete enter(next_state, {open,LockButton}, Data, [{reply,From,ok}]); [Digit|Rest] -> % Incomplete {keep_state,Data#{remaining := Rest},[{reply,From,ok}]}; [_|_] -> % Wrong {keep_state,Data#{remaining := Code},[{reply,From,ok}]} end; %% %% State: open handle_event(internal, enter, {open,_}, Data) -> Tref = erlang:start_timer(10000, self(), lock), do_unlock(), {keep_state,Data#{timer => Tref}}; handle_event( info, {timeout,Tref,lock}, {open,LockButton}, #{timer := Tref} = Data) -> enter(next_state, {locked,LockButton}, Data, []); handle_event( {call,From}, {button,LockButton}, {open,LockButton}, #{timer := Tref} = Data) -> erlang:cancel_timer(Tref), enter(next_state, {locked,LockButton}, Data, [{reply,From,locked}]); handle_event({call,_}, {button,_}, {open,_}, _) -> {keep_state_and_data,[postpone]}; %% %% Any state handle_event( {call,From}, {set_lock_button,NewLockButton}, {StateName,OldLockButton}, Data) -> {next_state,{StateName,NewLockButton},Data, [{reply,From,OldLockButton}]}; handle_event({call,From}, code_length, _State, #{code := Code}) -> {keep_state_and_data,[{reply,From,length(Code)}]}. enter(Tag, State, Data, Actions) -> {Tag,State,Data,[{next_event,internal,enter}|Actions]}. do_lock() -> io:format("Locked~n", []). do_unlock() -> io:format("Open~n", []). terminate(_Reason, State, _Data) -> State =/= locked andalso do_lock(), ok. code_change(_Vsn, State, Data, _Extra) -> {?CALLBACK_MODE,State,Data}. ]]>

It may be an ill-fitting model for a physical code lock that the button/1 call might hang until the lock is locked. But for an API in general it is really not that strange.