hdfirmware

Clone Tools
  • last updated a few seconds ago
Constraints
Constraints: committers
 
Constraints: files
Constraints: dates
RESOLVED in CODE WALKTHROUGH

RESOLVED in CODE WALKTHROUGH

The removed code changes are dead code due to condition of "if" condition check at top level ( ALARM_TABLE[ a ].alarmClearOnly). these alarms have property of 'clear only' as 'TRUE" in the alarm ta...

The removed code changes are dead code due to condition of "if" condition check at top level ( ALARM_TABLE[ a ].alarmClearOnly). these alarms have property of 'clear only' as 'TRUE" in the alarm table. hence condition always be false and the removed code changes never executed.

Why was this block removed? We do not need to check of the empty bottles alarms anymore?

Why was this block removed? We do not need to check of the empty bottles alarms anymore?

HD-DEN-16595_Vectorcast Unit And Integration Testing
HD-DEN-16595_Vectorcast Unit And Integration Testing
HD-DEN-16595_Vectorcast Unit And Integration Testing
HD-DEN-16595_Vectorcast Unit And Integration Testing
RESOLVED in CODE WALKTHROUGH

RESOLVED in CODE WALKTHROUGH

HD-DEN-16518_Alarm 41 Triggered ON Dvt 014 AT The Beginning OF Treatment
HD-DEN-16518_Alarm 41 Triggered ON Dvt 014 AT The Beginning OF Treatment
Discussed with Sean and confirmed that matching requirement done in the code. We are good with the modification now.

Discussed with Sean and confirmed that matching requirement done in the code. We are good with the modification now.

Why was the = removed from the ternary ifs?

Why was the = removed from the ternary ifs?

HD-DEN-16391_FW Dialysate Temperature Alarm Not Sensitive Enough Use Tdi Moving Avg
HD-DEN-16391_FW Dialysate Temperature Alarm Not Sensitive Enough Use Tdi Moving Avg
Do we really want to use a whole flash sector for a flag? I thought bootloader was going to talk to UI to determine whether an update was in progress?

Do we really want to use a whole flash sector for a flag? I thought bootloader was going to talk to UI to determine whether an update was in progress?

What is this for?

What is this for?

This is adding conversion to binary step post-build, correct? Are we losing the alarm check here?

This is adding conversion to binary step post-build, correct? Are we losing the alarm check here?

Don't make changes outside of user code sections.

Don't make changes outside of user code sections.

So app start address is offset by 64K. Assuming that is plenty of room for bootloader but we should check. Also, have we checked that the first 64K of Flash memory is discreet sector-wise? We do no...

So app start address is offset by 64K. Assuming that is plenty of room for bootloader but we should check.
Also, have we checked that the first 64K of Flash memory is discreet sector-wise? We do not want bootloader and app sharing a sector.

Why aren't each of these messages calling their own handler function? They appear to exist in SystemCommMessages.c so I believe that was the intent.

Why aren't each of these messages calling their own handler function? They appear to exist in SystemCommMessages.c so I believe that was the intent.

Should we use new reboot function in Update.c?

Should we use new reboot function in Update.c?

Spaces in (). Be explicit on BOOL conditions.

Spaces in (). Be explicit on BOOL conditions.