leahi-dialin / leahi_dialin / dd / modules

conductivity_sensors.py

Clone Tools

Stats

Commits this week: 1
Total Committers: 3
Last Commit: 31 Dec 69
Commits this week: 1

Lines of code count not available

Commit Activity

Commits By Day In Week
52 week commits volume
Commits By Day In Week
Commits by day
Commits By Day In Week
Commits by hour
Commits By Hour In Day
Commit calendar
 

Most active committers (90 days)

loading
loading
  • last updated a few seconds ago
All Commits Reviews
Constraints
Constraints: committers
 
Constraints: files
Constraints: dates
Tuesday 27 Jan
10:07 am

Michael Garthwaite

10:07 am

Michael Garthwaite

Merge branch 'staging' into LDT-2004-dialysate-composition-dd

Options
    • -8
    • +3
    ./conductivity_sensors.py
9:24 am

Zoltan Miskolci

9:20 am

Michael Garthwaite

updated to use the generic override. Both of you are correct, the generic override can be used. Since we pack the payload outside of the generic override, for this situation we don't pack the res...

updated to use the generic override.

Both of you are correct, the generic override can be used.

Since we pack the payload outside of the generic override, for this situation we don't pack the reset byte and therefore will stay as a U32 which satisfies the FW constraint. The other concern I had was that the FW would not reply back with a test ACK back to dialin with this cmd, thus causing a timeout in the generic override function. This is address as all messages in the lookup table in FW will reply back with a test ACK.

Therefore im okay using the generic override method

Monday 26 Jan
10:46 pm

Sean Nash

10:45 pm

Sean Nash

If Michael is right, then f/w is not expecting an override payload and so we shouldn't use the generic override payload structure.

If Michael is right, then f/w is not expecting an override payload and so we shouldn't use the generic override payload structure.

4:51 pm

Zoltan Miskolci

4:19 pm

Vendor - TEL - Varshini Nagabooshanam and Sean Nash

3:13 pm

Zoltan Miskolci

It handles different size of payloads, and requests without payload without having an issue, so I don't understand why would it cause an issue. you are sending a message with this msg id and this p...

It handles different size of payloads, and requests without payload without having an issue, so I don't understand why would it cause an issue.
you are sending a message with this msg id and this payload, if the FW is expecting that, then it will work.

Should I rename the cmd_generic_override to like cmd_generic_message_sender to be less confusing?

2:29 pm

Michael Garthwaite

LDT-2004: updated to use generic override.

Options
    • -6
    • +9
    ./conductivity_sensors.py
12:31 pm

Michael Garthwaite

fixed writing over the error count override. Model ID isnt an override. Its a set as it does not revert back to another value. FW will be looking for only 1 U32 instead of a TEST_OVERRIDE_PAYLOAD_...

fixed writing over the error count override.

Model ID isnt an override. Its a set as it does not revert back to another value. FW will be looking for only 1 U32 instead of a TEST_OVERRIDE_PAYLOAD_T.

the generic override will cause the FW to always reject the value since the payload size is not what is expected.

12:28 pm

Michael Garthwaite

LDT-2004: fixed overrwriting error count override. Renamed set conductivity model method.

Options
    • -1
    • +25
    ./conductivity_sensors.py
12:26 pm

Zoltan Miskolci

Can't we use the generic override? You just need to update 3 fields: msg_id = MsgIds.MSG_ID_DD_SET_CONDUCTIVITY_MODEL_REQUEST entity_name = 'DD Coductivity sensor model request' override_text = 'S...

Can't we use the generic override?
You just need to update 3 fields:

msg_id = MsgIds.MSG_ID_DD_SET_CONDUCTIVITY_MODEL_REQUEST
entity_name = 'DD Coductivity sensor model request'
override_text = 'Sent' or ''

12:18 pm

Michael Garthwaite

LDT-2004: implementation for set conductivity model

Options
    • -22
    • +21
    ./conductivity_sensors.py
  2. … 1 more file in changeset.
12:16 pm

Dara Navaei

LEAHI-DIALIN-LDT-2004_Dialysate Composition - DD
LEAHI-DIALIN-LDT-2004_Dialysate Composition - DD
Friday 23 Jan
3:18 pm

Michael Garthwaite

11:42 am

Zoltan Miskolci

- Removed HW flag from broadcast as FW doesn't change broadcast content based on HW flag

Options
    • -8
    • +3
    ./conductivity_sensors.py
  2. … 6 more files in changeset.
Thursday 22 Jan
10:07 am

Zoltan Miskolci

10:06 am

Zoltan Miskolci

Merge branch 'LDT-3214-override-refactor' into staging

Options
    • -104
    • +48
    ./conductivity_sensors.py
  2. … 46 more files in changeset.
Wednesday 21 Jan
12:35 pm

Sean Nash

11:08 am

Zoltan Miskolci

10:31 am

Raghu Kallala and Michael Garthwaite

9:47 am

Zoltan Miskolci

Tuesday 20 Jan
3:33 pm

Tiffany Mejia

10:14 am

Zoltan Miskolci

I added the unique decorator back, except for the few that have aliases

I added the unique decorator back, except for the few that have aliases

9:32 am

Zoltan Miskolci

Renamed, also flagged for future type change.

Renamed, also flagged for future type change.

9:31 am

Zoltan Miskolci

- Renamed variable

Options
    • -2
    • +2
    ./conductivity_sensors.py
  2. … 9 more files in changeset.
Monday 19 Jan
11:52 am

Michael Garthwaite

"No one should interact with it or be aware of it's existence, so the name shouldn't matter." *it matters to those who read the code in inconsistent intervals ( like those who participate in code...

"No one should interact with it or be aware of it's existence, so the name shouldn't matter."

  • it matters to those who read the code in inconsistent intervals ( like those who participate in code review or teaching ).


"As we only have 2 version in test at the same time."

  • Currently. By summer, i'd expect dialin to be considering 1.0's, 1.9s, and 2.0s/DVTs.


We have the choice to handle the redesign effort then or now.


Edit:
Follow up comment.

Looking at the other files. Users of dialin will not be aware of existence, but developers of dialin will as it impacts the behavior of overrides like temp & pressure.

11:48 am

Michael Garthwaite

yes. that's the design consideration. Are we okay with our unit tests no longer checking for duplicate values? ( they will currently pass as i remember they expect an exception due to the unique ke...

yes. that's the design consideration. Are we okay with our unit tests no longer checking for duplicate values? ( they will currently pass as i remember they expect an exception due to the unique keyword to fail. These will not trigger an exception ).

10:46 am

Zoltan Miskolci

I am not sure I can assign unique to the dynamic enums. Also with unique you can't add aliases and some(for example: temperature) overrides use the aliases to determine which msg id to call and how...

I am not sure I can assign unique to the dynamic enums. Also with unique you can't add aliases and some(for example: temperature) overrides use the aliases to determine which msg id to call and how much to shift value for it.
Making an alias is more dynamic and not needing separate variables to be maintained for this.