SystemCommMessages.h

Clone Tools
  • last updated a few minutes ago
Constraints
Constraints: committers
 
Constraints: files
Constraints: dates
Merge branch 'DEN-17093-blood-leak-zeroing-in-treatment' into develop

  1. … 2 more files in changeset.
DEN-17093 added code to override the blood leak zeroing interval

  1. … 4 more files in changeset.
Merge branch 'DEN-17093-blood-leak-zeroing-in-treatment' into develop

  1. … 2 more files in changeset.
DEN-17093 added a command to override the blood leak intensity moving average

  1. … 4 more files in changeset.
Merge branch 'DEN-17093-blood-leak-zeroing-in-treatment' into develop

  1. … 2 more files in changeset.
DEN-17093 added a command to override the blood leak embedded mode info commands

  1. … 4 more files in changeset.
I changed it to 4 seconds.

I changed it to 4 seconds.

The state machine that is in charge of receiving the response back from the sensor has a timeout and sets the command response as ready.

The state machine that is in charge of receiving the response back from the sensor has a timeout and sets the command response as ready.

Done

Done

So now it's enough if 1 or 2 samples in the drift range is enough to re-zero? Still seems too brief to me.

So now it's enough if 1 or 2 samples in the drift range is enough to re-zero? Still seems too brief to me.

RESOLVED in CODE WALKTHROUGH.

RESOLVED in CODE WALKTHROUGH.

RESOLVED in CODE WALKTHROUGH.

RESOLVED in CODE WALKTHROUGH.

This call to signal pressure stabilization should probably be moved into the request zero function.

This call to signal pressure stabilization should probably be moved into the request zero function.

RESOLVED in CODE WALKTHROUGH.

RESOLVED in CODE WALKTHROUGH.

RESOLVED in CODE WALKTHROUGH.

RESOLVED in CODE WALKTHROUGH.

RESOLVED in CODE WALKTHROUGH.

RESOLVED in CODE WALKTHROUGH.

Do we need a else if timeout check here? Can we get stuck waiting for response indefinitely?

Do we need a else if timeout check here? Can we get stuck waiting for response indefinitely?

RESOLVED in CODE WALKTHROUGH.

RESOLVED in CODE WALKTHROUGH.

Removed the static pointer.

Removed the static pointer.

Removed the state.

Removed the state.

RESOLVED in CODE WALKTHROUGH.

RESOLVED in CODE WALKTHROUGH.

This code has been removed, please check the handler functions. Also, ternary is a one-liner so sometimes it reduces the lines of code.

This code has been removed, please check the handler functions. Also, ternary is a one-liner so sometimes it reduces the lines of code.

I'm not seeing that. And why isn't the exec returning a state that you assign to result?

I'm not seeing that. And why isn't the exec returning a state that you assign to result?

Why are you treating bloodLeakZeroingStatus as a pointer here?

Why are you treating bloodLeakZeroingStatus as a pointer here?

Not clear to me that this is any better than bypassing the dialyzer in previous state and is likely worse. The way you have it now, the dialysate being pushed by DPi is going to run into a stopped ...

Not clear to me that this is any better than bypassing the dialyzer in previous state and is likely worse. The way you have it now, the dialysate being pushed by DPi is going to run into a stopped DPo and cause a big pressure spike and push dialysate into blood side.

RESOLVED in CODE WALKTHROUGH.

RESOLVED in CODE WALKTHROUGH.

That doesn't answer my question.

That doesn't answer my question.

RESOLVED in CODE WALKTHROUGH.

RESOLVED in CODE WALKTHROUGH.

RESOLVED in CODE WALKTHROUGH.

RESOLVED in CODE WALKTHROUGH.

Just pushed.

Just pushed.