Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Wrong received checksums in meta data #141

Open
nicostudt opened this issue Sep 27, 2023 · 5 comments
Open

Wrong received checksums in meta data #141

nicostudt opened this issue Sep 27, 2023 · 5 comments

Comments

@nicostudt
Copy link
Contributor

Moin,

We currently have the issue that the checksums(both app_checksum and overall_checksum) do appear to use the opposite endianness for our Sick nanoScan3 I/O . As mentioned in #126 by @YannickdeHoop the checksums are received using big endian, but neither do I see that specified in the technical specs nor in the actual meta data of the scanners.

@puck-fzi
Copy link
Collaborator

puck-fzi commented Oct 4, 2023

Thanks for opening this, I will check this, since I am sure, there was a reason why it was read the other way. I will have a look into it

@chr-wurm
Copy link
Contributor

chr-wurm commented Oct 6, 2023

Do you use theconfig_metadata service I added in https://github.com/SICKAG/sick_safetyscanners/pull/93/files? It swaps the bytes, as I did not fix the root cause in the parsing - that was done here, which I did not notice : https://github.com/SICKAG/sick_safetyscanners/pull/126/files#diff-6c2b82f3b1044e6d9084c96415d2740a466b2f2d8756c9bf9722d69859efc7e5 - both PRs were merged rather at the same time. I think we should rather change that back to non-swapping.

@nicostudt
Copy link
Contributor Author

Do you use theconfig_metadata service I added in https://github.com/SICKAG/sick_safetyscanners/pull/93/files?

Yes, I do. The double swap is indeed unfortunate. ^^
Apart from that, I would like to know if the technical spec actually specifies the endianness like that. Maybe one of you could give me a hint with the passage in the document.

@puck-fzi
Copy link
Collaborator

Hi, sorry for the late reply; just to clarify things now, what exactly is the issue now? Is there a double change of the order now? And the PR #142 is still necessary? Or are at different points in the Code appearing different outcomes due to multiple changes?

@nicostudt
Copy link
Contributor Author

Hey, no problem.
I can only say that since we use the version from #142, we have no longer observed any issues with wrongly reported checksums.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

3 participants