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

Telemetry settings #118

Conversation

gautierhattenberger
Copy link
Member

Tthe settings for the telemetry modes are automatically generated from the XML file and are available in the GCS.
Old settings file are updated.
Fixedwing and rotorcraft firmewares are supported (not csc (obsolote ?) nor fms test program).

settings list and the GCS (working with fixedwing and rotorcraft
firmwares)
@@ -113,7 +142,9 @@ let _ =
fprintf avr_h "/* This file has been generated from %s and %s */\n" Sys.argv.(2) Sys.argv.(3);
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Can we please rename avr_h to something more appropriate?

Copy link
Member Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

will do

@flixr
Copy link
Member

flixr commented Jan 25, 2012

I like it :-) First step to making settings easier to use.

While we are at it: I think it would be nice to rename periodic.h to something more accurate. When I read #include "generated/periodic.h", periodic telemetry messages are not the first thing that come to mind...
Maybe periodic_messages.h?

telemetry_booz2.xml should be renamed to telemetry_rotorcraft.xml

And now that keyboard shortcuts are directly specified in the telemetry file and most people will just "have" them, I wonder what happens if the same key is given twice for two different settings?
Also what happens if you have the same settings twice? E.g. somebody with a custom settings file that still has the telemetry mode? If it fails to compile or something, it is ok... But it mustn't silently fail.

@gautierhattenberger
Copy link
Member Author

most of the people already have the shortcut keys without knowing as they use the standard settings file. It just moves the definition of the key.
For the issue of having several time the same setting, it is completely armless. The setting will just appear twice. We just have to tell that the old definition can be removed from custom files.
Concerning telemetry (and settings) files, I'm in favor of removing the prefix telemetry_ (or settings_). It doesn't really gives any information
telemetry_booz2.xml -> rotorcraft_default.xml ?
The big question is : do we clean all the telemetry and settings file without carring of backward compatibility ? I think we can do that (in dev first) if we have a page in the wiki that tells were to find things and how files are linked to firmware/subsystems/modules

@flixr
Copy link
Member

flixr commented Jan 25, 2012

I know that most people already have the shortcut keys, just wondering what happens if you have the same shortcut for multiple settings...

For the issue of having several time the same setting, it is completely armless. The setting will just appear twice.

good

Concerning telemetry (and settings) files, I'm in favor of removing the prefix telemetry_ (or settings_). It doesn't really gives any information

At some point that was explicitly added (by antoine?) because it was supposed to be more clear what the file was...
Personally I'm fine with either, but it should be consistent.

The big question is : do we clean all the telemetry and settings file without carring of backward compatibility?

What do you mean by backward compatibility in this case?
If we clean up, we should do it properly right away and implement auto-settings for subsystems/modules, see issue #23

I think we can do that (in dev first) if we have a page in the wiki that tells were to find things and how files are linked to firmware/subsystems/modules

Sure, do it in a new branch based on dev, when it works, merge it back to dev.... Then soon we will have to merge dev back to master anyway and announce all the relevant changes (e.g. the automatic unit conversions, etc. ) and document that on the wiki. When we do that we just make version tags as well.

@esden
Copy link
Member

esden commented Jan 25, 2012

Just as a side note, I would like to reuse some of the CSC code on Lisa/M as it can be used in the same fashion but CSC itself can be dropped in my opinion.

@flixr
Copy link
Member

flixr commented Jan 25, 2012

Sure, I deleted all the csc stuff in the dev branch already... but it's not like it's totally gone ;-)
Just add the updated/new code into the current structure we have...

@esden
Copy link
Member

esden commented Jan 25, 2012

OK as long as I can find it when I want to resurrect it... :)

@flixr
Copy link
Member

flixr commented Jan 25, 2012

git log --grep csc
or the gui variant ;-)

On Wed, Jan 25, 2012 at 7:21 PM, Piotr Esden-Tempski
reply@reply.github.com
wrote:

OK as long as I can find it when I want to resurrect it... :)


Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
#118 (comment)

@flixr
Copy link
Member

flixr commented Feb 11, 2012

Should we merge this now?
If we do, people will have to use different settings files... maybe we should clean this up some more first?

@gautierhattenberger
Copy link
Member Author

What do you want to clean ? source code or config files ?

@flixr
Copy link
Member

flixr commented Feb 13, 2012

I meant the telemetry xml files.

@gautierhattenberger
Copy link
Member Author

@flixr do you know if it is possible to change the pull request range (to merge in 4.0 rather than dev) without closing and opening again ?

@flixr
Copy link
Member

flixr commented Feb 19, 2012

@gautierhattenberger I don't think that is possible.
But you can just merge this branch into 4.0_beta and close this pull request if you don't want to merge it into dev.

Also the conf/conf.xml.example probably needs to be adjusted to reflect the new names for the telemetry files...

@gautierhattenberger
Copy link
Member Author

The pull request is merged in the 4.0_beta branch and is now closed (no merge in dev branch)

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

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

None yet

3 participants