Controllers

Clone Tools
  • last updated a few minutes ago
Constraints
Constraints: committers
 
Constraints: files
Constraints: dates
DEN-12974 Code review updates

Seems like isADCValid should be returned.

Seems like isADCValid should be returned.

This will be addressed in DEN-12931.

This will be addressed in DEN-12931.

This will be addressed in DEN-12931.

This will be addressed in DEN-12931.

This will be addressed in DEN-12931.

This will be addressed in DEN-12931.

This will be addressed in DEN-12931.

This will be addressed in DEN-12931.

This will be addressed in DEN-12931.

This will be addressed in DEN-12931.

This will be addressed in DEN-12931.

This will be addressed in DEN-12931.

Removed blank line

Removed blank line

Will add back in.

Will add back in.

Are we sticking with this threshold?

Are we sticking with this threshold?

Need to address TODOs. Have we assessed what an appropriate max delta should be? Alarm should be cleared if it is recoverable (not a fault) and not cleared immediately (see alarm properties).

Need to address TODOs. Have we assessed what an appropriate max delta should be? Alarm should be cleared if it is recoverable (not a fault) and not cleared immediately (see alarm properties).

Make this assignment explicitly BOOL (i.e. TRUE or FALSE), not implied bool.

Make this assignment explicitly BOOL (i.e. TRUE or FALSE), not implied bool.

Use our boolean #define (FALSE) instead of built-in (false).

Use our boolean #define (FALSE) instead of built-in (false).

Remove blank line.

Remove blank line.

Coding standard wants just one return statement in a function. Set a local boolean in if/else and return that.

Coding standard wants just one return statement in a function. Set a local boolean in if/else and return that.

Should we return isADCValid? Pick one, remove the other.

Should we return isADCValid? Pick one, remove the other.

Can we remove this code now?

Can we remove this code now?

Why is this commented out?

Why is this commented out?

Can we just remove this code now?

Can we just remove this code now?

Does this function activate alarm too? Why needed if line above activates alarm already? Why commented out?

Does this function activate alarm too? Why needed if line above activates alarm already? Why commented out?

Why is this alarm commented out?

Why is this alarm commented out?

I think we need two separate minimums here. 1. used by ROPump.c should be 0.2 and private (declared in ROPump.c) with this name. 2. used by UVReactors.c should be 0.3 and private (declared in UVRea...

I think we need two separate minimums here.
1. used by ROPump.c should be 0.2 and private (declared in ROPump.c) with this name.
2. used by UVReactors.c should be 0.3 and private (declared in UVReactors.c) with a different name like MIN_RO_FLOW_FOR_UV_LPM.

Remove extra blank line.

Remove extra blank line.

Why did this change? I think it's needed for doxygen.

Why did this change? I think it's needed for doxygen.

DEN-12931 updated the drivers for the DVT changes

  1. … 5 more files in changeset.
DG-DEN-12974_Miscellaneous Flush Issues BB
DG-DEN-12974_Miscellaneous Flush Issues BB
DG-DEN-12847_SW Dev Sprint 71 Darren
DG-DEN-12847_SW Dev Sprint 71 Darren
Merge remote-tracking branch 'origin/DEN-12974-miscellaneous-flush-issues_bb' into develop

# Conflicts:

# firmware/App/Controllers/ConductivitySensors.c

# firmware/App/Controllers/ROPump.c

  1. … 1 more file in changeset.
Merged DEN-12931

  1. … 2 more files in changeset.