Gimbal manager/status - device ids #1988
Merged
Conversation
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
rmackay9
approved these changes
May 18, 2023
|
@rmackay9 I don't want to make it completely consistent because that other field is a setter command. So the value can be set to zero. In these cases the value is the reported value of the device ID, and as discussed, must not be zero. Hope that makes sense. |
julianoes
reviewed
May 18, 2023
hamishwillee
commented
Jun 14, 2023
|
Great. I think we have agreement. Merging. |
marcinolokk
pushed a commit
to Auterion/mavlink
that referenced
this pull request
Jun 16, 2023
* Gimbal manager/status - device ids * Update message_definitions/v1.0/common.xml * Update message_definitions/v1.0/common.xml
marcinolokk
pushed a commit
to Auterion/mavlink
that referenced
this pull request
Jun 28, 2023
* Gimbal manager/status - device ids * Update message_definitions/v1.0/common.xml * Update message_definitions/v1.0/common.xml
marcinolokk
pushed a commit
to Auterion/mavlink
that referenced
this pull request
Jun 28, 2023
* Gimbal manager/status - device ids * Update message_definitions/v1.0/common.xml * Update message_definitions/v1.0/common.xml
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
This change arises out of #1980 (comment) "should the device id be 0 or 1 indexed"
@julianoes I have taken the text you suggested from GIMBAL_MANAGER_SET_ATTITUDE. However I'm not completely convinced it is correct to use gimbal component IDs.
The id absolutely does have to be indexed from one. However I thought the concept of the id as set in the manager was to abstract component IDs for the gimbal - so we'd always use 1-6 and not have to think about what device IDs were actually mapped to - the manager would sort that out.
Conceptually I find that much easier when working with a gimbal manager. I'm also a bit worried that you might have both mavlink and non-mavlink gimbals and then it isn't necessarily obvious whether you think you're talking to a component id 1 or a device that is mapped to one.
The only reason we couldn't do this is if something other than the gimbal manager needs to directly know the component IDs of the gimbals, and there is no way to infer the mapping from the gimbal manager.
What am I missing? (I could be completely wrong about the intent)