leahi-dialin / leahi_dialin / fp / modules

conductivity_sensors.py

Clone Tools

Stats

Commits this week: 0
Total Committers: 4
Last Commit: 31 Dec 69
Commits this week: 0

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
Thursday 12 Feb
1:29 pm

Zoltan Miskolci

10:41 am

Michael Garthwaite and Raghu Kallala

9:48 am

Zoltan Miskolci

9:29 am

Zoltan Miskolci

Removed

Removed

9:23 am

Michael Garthwaite

There is one more -1 that considered D98. fp.conductivity.cmd_conductivity_sensor_filtered_readings_override()

There is one more -1 that considered D98. fp.conductivity.cmd_conductivity_sensor_filtered_readings_override()

Wednesday 11 Feb
11:33 am

Michael Garthwaite

10:10 am

Zoltan Miskolci

9:28 am

Dara Navaei

LEAHI-DIALIN-LDT-3479_D98 is in DD conductivity module
LEAHI-DIALIN-LDT-3479_D98 is in DD conductivity module
9:10 am

Michael Garthwaite

reverted handler to the original version. This was required to get a merge with develop to work

reverted handler to the original version. This was required to get a merge with develop to work

9:09 am

Michael Garthwaite

fixed.

fixed.

Tuesday 10 Feb
3:40 pm

Zoltan Miskolci

This code won't work. The sensor list missing the for loop that's populating it, and the original one is missing the M3 unpack. It's a merge of an old and a new code but both incomplete. Please re...

This code won't work. The sensor list missing the for loop that's populating it, and the original one is missing the M3 unpack. It's a merge of an old and a new code but both incomplete.

Please reference https://devapps.diality.us/cru/LEAHI-DIALIN-LDT-3480-1 for working solution on this.

3:34 pm

Zoltan Miskolci

Duplicate, please remove

Duplicate, please remove

Monday 09 Feb
4:20 pm

Sean Nash

Thursday 05 Feb
11:32 am

Dara Navaei

LEAHI-DIALIN-LDT-3287_Dialin ability to pull B1.9 IOFP variable data has changed from B1.0
LEAHI-DIALIN-LDT-3287_Dialin ability to pull B1.9 IOFP variable data has changed from B1.0
Thursday 22 Jan
10:07 am

Zoltan Miskolci

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.

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.

10:42 am

Zoltan Miskolci

Enum content of Beta 1.0 and Beta 1.9 is different. The new sensors messing up the order for the old HW's override and broadcast data allocation. Making it dynamic makes it that when the beta test ...

Enum content of Beta 1.0 and Beta 1.9 is different. The new sensors messing up the order for the old HW's override and broadcast data allocation.
Making it dynamic makes it that when the beta test config is called the enums are switching content to reflect that.

10:40 am

Zoltan Miskolci

Reasons: *No one should interact with it or be aware of it's existence, so the name shouldn't matter. *As we only have 2 version in test at the same time, I am making an internal variable name th...

Reasons:

  • No one should interact with it or be aware of it's existence, so the name shouldn't matter.
  • As we only have 2 version in test at the same time, I am making an internal variable name that I don't need to rename every 3 months or so.
    Needing to make a review smaller with editing less thing makes it faster to be completed...


In case a situation arrives when we will test more version at the same time Alpha, Beta, Beta 1.9, it will require a redesign on the part of enum generation too.

10:39 am

Michael Garthwaite

previously we had the unique keyword above our classes as a developer sanity check to ensure the dev didnt duplicate values in the dict since we dont auto generate this defs. if i remember correct...

previously we had the unique keyword above our classes as a developer sanity check to ensure the dev didnt duplicate values in the dict since we dont auto generate this defs.

if i remember correctly, unique is checked when the enum class is imported. We test it our unit tests, both test_constructors and test_imports.

The reason we currently would want to keep unique is because the DialinEnum class has the method has_value(). Without knowing the current usage of this function from our users, it will impact users expected behavior.

My question to you: Should we continue to test and check how the defs for duplicates?

10:19 am

Michael Garthwaite

This should be renamed to be more concise and allow flexibility as more HW revisions come. What is next gen? All BETAs? BETA 1.9? Beta 2.0? DVT?

This should be renamed to be more concise and allow flexibility as more HW revisions come. What is next gen? All BETAs? BETA 1.9? Beta 2.0? DVT?

10:16 am

Michael Garthwaite

What is the intention of making our defs dynamic and a class object rather keeping it a class?

What is the intention of making our defs dynamic and a class object rather keeping it a class?