- Posts: 1386
Please review changes in github
- victzh
- Topic Author
- Offline
Less
More
04 Oct 2016 01:19 #54563
by victzh
Please review changes in github was created by victzh
Goebish, hexfet, mwm, FDR - in the absence of PhracturedBlue we need to keep moving. One of the activities - review and approve/merge changes in github pull requests. Even if you can't test you can review the code. We are few, so to keep 2 approvals rule we need more active participation in reviewing.
Thanks,
Victor.
Thanks,
Victor.
Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.
- FDR
- Offline
04 Oct 2016 19:16 #54598
by FDR
Replied by FDR on topic Please review changes in github
Wow!
Though it is nice that you thought about me I could review those codes, I'm not that familiar with the deviation codebase, even less with the RF chipsets. (It's a pity, because I'm intrested in, but have no time for that.)
I've just taken a look into the pending pull requests, and I would leave the judgements to those who have enough knowledge of the matter.
Though it is nice that you thought about me I could review those codes, I'm not that familiar with the deviation codebase, even less with the RF chipsets. (It's a pity, because I'm intrested in, but have no time for that.)
I've just taken a look into the pending pull requests, and I would leave the judgements to those who have enough knowledge of the matter.
Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.
- victzh
- Topic Author
- Offline
Less
More
- Posts: 1386
04 Oct 2016 20:56 #54607
by victzh
Replied by victzh on topic Please review changes in github
It's nice of you to look. I'm not familiar with large parts of the codebase myself, I try to expand the scope though.
Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.
- hexfet
- Offline
Less
More
- Posts: 1891
09 Oct 2016 23:38 #54778
by hexfet
Replied by hexfet on topic Please review changes in github
I merged the frskyx_drop fix as I now have means to test. The bar should probably be lower for protocols since their affect is isolated. PB has said that improvements should be merged, even if not the final solution.
Approved the yd717 change, though I understand mwm's concern.
Approved the yd717 change, though I understand mwm's concern.
Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.
- HappyHarry
- Offline
Less
More
- Posts: 1136
10 Oct 2016 02:19 #54779
by HappyHarry
Replied by HappyHarry on topic Please review changes in github
could one of you code guru's explain what's needed to get the pending switch fixes for the 7e-256k commited, and give a hint how to do so please. I'm no great coder but as the code is working perfectly I presume it's just some minor cleanup and I should hopefully manage that
Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.
- victzh
- Topic Author
- Offline
Less
More
- Posts: 1386
11 Oct 2016 15:43 #54824
by victzh
Replied by victzh on topic Please review changes in github
The code is very repetitive for no reason. In src/target/devo7e-256/channels.c:CHAN_ReadRawInput all the constructs like
if ((~Transmitter.ignore_src & SWITCH_3x1) == SWITCH_3x1) {
switch(channel) {
case INP_SWA0: value = (global_extra_switches & (1 << (SW_01 - 1))); break;
case INP_SWA1: value = (!(global_extra_switches & (1 << (SW_01 - 1))) && !(global_extra_switches & (1 << (SW_02 - 1)))); break;
case INP_SWA2: value = (global_extra_switches & (1 << (SW_02 - 1))); break;
}
} else ...
should be replaced with a loop over values of SWITCH_*, like
for (int i = 0; i < sizeof(SwitchTable)/sizeof(*SwitchTable); ++i) {
Switch_struct &ss = SwitchTable;
if ((~Transmitter.ignore_src & ss.inputs) == ss.inputs) {
}
}
It's not that easy - switched are grouped by alternatives - there can be 3 throw switch (actually, double throw with middle position) and double throw configured at one input set - thus some pieces of the code are if...else...
I'm not an expert of how the switch input and decoding works, but I see that I can't easily figure it out from the code and the code is redundant - that is why I asked for a clearer re-write.
if ((~Transmitter.ignore_src & SWITCH_3x1) == SWITCH_3x1) {
switch(channel) {
case INP_SWA0: value = (global_extra_switches & (1 << (SW_01 - 1))); break;
case INP_SWA1: value = (!(global_extra_switches & (1 << (SW_01 - 1))) && !(global_extra_switches & (1 << (SW_02 - 1)))); break;
case INP_SWA2: value = (global_extra_switches & (1 << (SW_02 - 1))); break;
}
} else ...
should be replaced with a loop over values of SWITCH_*, like
for (int i = 0; i < sizeof(SwitchTable)/sizeof(*SwitchTable); ++i) {
Switch_struct &ss = SwitchTable;
if ((~Transmitter.ignore_src & ss.inputs) == ss.inputs) {
}
}
It's not that easy - switched are grouped by alternatives - there can be 3 throw switch (actually, double throw with middle position) and double throw configured at one input set - thus some pieces of the code are if...else...
I'm not an expert of how the switch input and decoding works, but I see that I can't easily figure it out from the code and the code is redundant - that is why I asked for a clearer re-write.
Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.
- petsmith
- Offline
Less
More
- Posts: 63
14 Oct 2016 08:05 #54907
by petsmith
Replied by petsmith on topic Please review changes in github
It seems silpstream is not interested in rewriting the code as the pull request is pending for almost 4 months. The pull request is merely a bug fix and not a feature enhancement. IMO, leaving a buggy version in the nightly is not a good idea. Furthermore, the repetitive code was already present in the previous buggy version, I really don't understand why the buggy version shouldn't be replaced with a working one. Unless some developer comes in and picks up the code, but I don't see it happening anytime soon.
Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.
- HappyHarry
- Offline
Less
More
- Posts: 1136
14 Oct 2016 14:40 - 14 Oct 2016 14:41 #54917
by HappyHarry
Replied by HappyHarry on topic Please review changes in github
thanks for the info victzh but that's clearly way above my pay grade, i'll just keep merging the code as is into my builds as it works perfectly well where as the existing nightly code doesn't
petsmith it's not that he wasn't interested, if you read the commit logs you'll see that the changes that were asked for were above his understanding (which going by victzh's post isn't surprising as even he said it isn't easy, and he can code very well) so not knowing how to proceed only left him one option. i'm kinda sad to see him step away from deviation also as he added a lot of cool stuff in the short time he was here including code, howto posts, writing wiki pages etc etc
petsmith it's not that he wasn't interested, if you read the commit logs you'll see that the changes that were asked for were above his understanding (which going by victzh's post isn't surprising as even he said it isn't easy, and he can code very well) so not knowing how to proceed only left him one option. i'm kinda sad to see him step away from deviation also as he added a lot of cool stuff in the short time he was here including code, howto posts, writing wiki pages etc etc
Last edit: 14 Oct 2016 14:41 by HappyHarry.
Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.
- Fernandez
- Offline
Less
More
- Posts: 983
14 Oct 2016 19:07 #54924
by Fernandez
Replied by Fernandez on topic Please review changes in github
Yup the switch mod is working stable and very good on my u7e, I have 8 switches and 2 extra analog pots installed
on my 7e for several month now, no issues. It is really good.
on my 7e for several month now, no issues. It is really good.
Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.
- victzh
- Topic Author
- Offline
Less
More
- Posts: 1386
14 Oct 2016 20:13 #54926
by victzh
Replied by victzh on topic Please review changes in github
OK, I merged the code to facilitate maintenance and as it is a marginal (but apparently important) platform and code is localized to this platform.
Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.
- HappyHarry
- Offline
Less
More
- Posts: 1136
14 Oct 2016 21:13 #54933
by HappyHarry
Replied by HappyHarry on topic Please review changes in github
many thanks for merging it as is victzh, hopefully someone comes along and can have a look at changing it to be more suitable in the future
as you say this only impacts the u7e code and as it stands the u7e firmware isn't built in the nightlies, so it doesn't affect any other deviation users at all, but this will at least allow people with little knowledge of how git works to build for the u7e straight from the main repo using the docker containers
as you say this only impacts the u7e code and as it stands the u7e firmware isn't built in the nightlies, so it doesn't affect any other deviation users at all, but this will at least allow people with little knowledge of how git works to build for the u7e straight from the main repo using the docker containers
Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.
- petsmith
- Offline
Less
More
- Posts: 63
15 Oct 2016 10:37 #54958
by petsmith
Replied by petsmith on topic Please review changes in github
victzh, thanks for merging the pull request, that will make our lives easier.
Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.
Time to create page: 0.051 seconds
- Home
- Forum
- Development
- Development
- Please review changes in github