Arming check duplicate switch options on Rover and Plane problem #14443

[mmk0102]

move rc().duplicate_options_exist() from Copter directory to general library AP_Arming.
(have to create new branch cause CI test problem in prev one)

Tested only in positive way: code print me message when it successfully pass :
if (rc().duplicate_options_exist())
for plane and copter in SITL.
To check it in negative I have to set duplicate options from Mavlink console. I dont know such command yet.

[mmk0102]

looks like I mb know the problem in last case: I should put added check-code after block
"only check if we've recieved some form of input within the last second"

[peterbarker]

Not really sure why we have three PRs for the same change now :-)

Still need to fix the commit messages - and remove trailing whitespace from this one.

Did you want me to finish this one off for you, or do you want to push through?

[mmk0102]

"Did you want me to finish this one" - sure.

I think maybe this code need some refactoring in future eventually:

1. if we can change parameters only once (if it want reset soft) should we test
   "if (rc().duplicate_options_exist())" each time ? May be if it happened we will set flag (static bool) in method and pass it next time?

2. in "duplicate_options_exist()" method we check all params even if "auxsw_option_counts[i] > 1" yet. Why ?
   Wouldn't better move this code to first cycle and remove second at all.
   Now it looks like:
   bool RC_Channels::duplicate_options_exist()
   {
   uint8_t auxsw_option_counts[256] = {};
   for (uint8_t i=0; i<NUM_RC_CHANNELS; i++) {
   const RC_Channel *c = channel(i);
   if (c == nullptr) {
   // odd?
   continue;
   }
   const uint16_t option = c->option.get();
   if (option >= sizeof(auxsw_option_counts)) {
   continue;
   }
   auxsw_option_counts[option]++;
   }

   for (uint16_t i=0; i<sizeof(auxsw_option_counts); i++) {
   if (i == 0) { // MAGIC VALUE! This is AUXSW_DO_NOTHING
   continue;
   }
   if (auxsw_option_counts[i] > 1) {
   return true;
   }
   }
   return false;
   }
   I want change to (in next pull req):
   bool RC_Channels::duplicate_options_exist()
   {
   uint8_t auxsw_option_counts[256] = {};
   for (uint8_t i=0; i<NUM_RC_CHANNELS; i++) {
   const RC_Channel *c = channel(i);
   if (c == nullptr) {
   // odd?
   continue;
   }
   const uint16_t option = c->option.get();
   if (option >= sizeof(auxsw_option_counts)) {
   continue;
   }
   auxsw_option_counts[option]++;
   if ( i!=0 && auxsw_option_counts[i] > 1) return true;
   }
   return false;
   }

[peterbarker]

We want to run this test each time to catch someone doing silly immediately they change a parameter. We don't hook parameter sets, so a periodic prearm check is appropriate.

[mmk0102]

Well, if you can finish this one should I convert this Pull req to draft ?

[peterbarker]

Closes #14443

Addressed

[peterbarker]

Fixed commit messages, removed whitespace, force-pushed it up.

[peterbarker]

Thanks @mmk0102 - we merged this!