leahi-common

Clone Tools
  • last updated a few seconds ago
Constraints
Constraints: committers
 
Constraints: files
Constraints: dates
resolved merge conflicts and merged LDT-3963

Merge branch 'staging' of bitbucket.org:diality-cloud/leahi-common into LDT-3215-measured-venous-pressure-decreases

Thats for error register so not required now

Thats for error register so not required now

You’re right. I should also check the busy status before transitioning to the GET_DATA state. I’ll update the measurement completion logic to first verify the busy bit is cleared, then validate the...

You’re right. I should also check the busy status before transitioning to the GET_DATA state. I’ll update the measurement completion logic to first verify the busy bit is cleared, then validate the BP data response code before moving to BP_DRIVER_GET_DATA_STATE.

Merge branch 'staging' into feature/LDT-3963-dialysate-flow-rate---fw-implem

LDT:3970 Merge Latest From Staging

LDT:3970 Updated Edit Treatment Parameters

Why do you have {} in the cases?

Why do you have {} in the cases?

You are getting bpResults, but not doing anything with them. Should you pass as parameter to checkBloodPressureReading() function?

You are getting bpResults, but not doing anything with them. Should you pass as parameter to checkBloodPressureReading() function?

Where are these get functions defined? I can't find them.

Where are these get functions defined? I can't find them.

LDT-3259 merged staging

LDT-1886: Resolved merge conflicts

Merge branch 'staging' of bitbucket.org:diality-cloud/leahi-common into LDT-4033-patient-vitals-fw-implementation

LDT-3215-measured-venous-pressure-decreases

LDT-3963 addressed code review comments

restored

restored

Not sure why Crucible is showing it this way. Let's just re-review these diffs.

Not sure why Crucible is showing it this way. Let's just re-review these diffs.

Bamboo Commit: Updated the Copyright section and replaced tabs with 4 spaces

Should be #ifndef

Should be #ifndef

Should be #ifndef I think.

Should be #ifndef I think.

Can we make these low priority and 999 rank?

Can we make these low priority and 999 rank?

LDT-3963 addressed code review comments

Removed

Removed

Updated

Updated

Added comments

Do we not need the module error alarm?

Do we not need the module error alarm?

This is not an atomic assignment, so we have to consider thread safety. If this driver is running from General Task (I believe it is since ModeTreatment's exec will be calling the BPModule's exec w...

This is not an atomic assignment, so we have to consider thread safety.
If this driver is running from General Task (I believe it is since ModeTreatment's exec will be calling the BPModule's exec which calls this driver's exec) and if the caller to this function will also be running from General Task (I believe it is since BPModule controller is the caller), then there is no thread safety issue and we should mention in the function header brief that this function should only be called from within the General Task.
If another task is involved (e.g. Priority Task is calling this function), this function could be interrupting the get data state while it is populating bpResults with new results and the caller would get a mix of old and new results (we would not want that).