eive/fsfw
eive/fsfw
15
1
Fork 0
forked from fsfw/fsfw
Code Issues Pull Requests Releases 1 Wiki Activity

implement relative timeshift #173

Merged
muellerr merged 10 commits from time-service-relative-timeshift into develop 2024-04-09 13:31:13 +02:00
Conversation 1 Commits 10 Files Changed 3 +75 -21
muellerr commented 2024-04-03 16:15:38 +02:00
Owner
Copy Link
No description provided.
muellerr added 1 commit 2024-04-03 16:15:39 +02:00
muellerr requested review from rschweigert 2024-04-03 16:15:58 +02:00
muellerr added 1 commit 2024-04-03 16:19:45 +02:00
muellerr added 1 commit 2024-04-03 16:23:23 +02:00
meggert removed review request for rschweigert 2024-04-08 08:32:01 +02:00
meggert requested review from meggert 2024-04-08 08:32:06 +02:00
meggert requested changes 2024-04-08 09:03:42 +02:00
Dismissed
src/fsfw/pus/Service9TimeManagement.cpp Outdated
@ -29,0 +27,4 @@
if (result != returnvalue::OK) {
return result;
}
triggerEvent(CLOCK_DUMP, newTime.tv_sec, newTime.tv_usec);
meggert commented 2024-04-08 09:03:09 +02:00
Owner
Copy Link

either still dump milliseconds for P2 or change the description of the event

either still dump milliseconds for P2 or change the description of the event
muellerr marked this conversation as resolved
src/fsfw/pus/Service9TimeManagement.cpp Outdated
@ -31,0 +52,4 @@
positiveShift = false;
}
timeval offset{};
offset.tv_sec = std::abs(timeshiftNanos) / 1000000000;
meggert commented 2024-04-08 09:01:06 +02:00
Owner
Copy Link

my man refusing to use 1e-9 so that one has to count the 0 individually

my man refusing to use 1e-9 so that one has to count the 0 individually
muellerr commented 2024-04-08 10:21:44 +02:00
Author
Owner
Copy Link

Isn't that a float/double implicitely? WE are using C++17 anyway, we can just use 1'000'000'000 I guess

Isn't that a float/double implicitely? WE are using C++17 anyway, we can just use 1'000'000'000 I guess
meggert commented 2024-04-08 10:22:41 +02:00
Owner
Copy Link

1e9 is what i meant

1e9 is what i meant
muellerr marked this conversation as resolved
src/fsfw/pus/Service9TimeManagement.cpp Outdated
@ -31,0 +64,4 @@
result = Clock::setClock(&newTime);
if (result == returnvalue::OK) {
// Report new time as event.
triggerEvent(CLOCK_DUMP, newTime.tv_sec, newTime.tv_usec);
meggert commented 2024-04-08 09:03:19 +02:00
Owner
Copy Link

see above

see above
muellerr marked this conversation as resolved
muellerr added 1 commit 2024-04-08 10:34:56 +02:00
meggert approved these changes 2024-04-08 10:38:40 +02:00
meggert left a comment
Owner
Copy Link

https://giphy.com/gifs/happy-car-home-rdma0nDFZMR32/fullscreen

https://giphy.com/gifs/happy-car-home-rdma0nDFZMR32/fullscreen
muellerr added 1 commit 2024-04-08 13:14:24 +02:00
muellerr added 1 commit 2024-04-08 13:27:00 +02:00
muellerr commented 2024-04-08 13:28:10 +02:00
Author
Owner
Copy Link

I have mode some more changes and improvements. There is now a timedump before and after setting an absolute time or a relative timeshift.

I have mode some more changes and improvements. There is now a timedump before and after setting an absolute time or a relative timeshift.
muellerr added 1 commit 2024-04-08 13:31:24 +02:00
meggert reviewed 2024-04-08 13:37:27 +02:00
src/fsfw/pus/Service9TimeManagement.cpp Outdated
@ -21,1 +21,3 @@
return setTime();
reportCurrentTime();
ReturnValue_t result = setTime();
reportCurrentTime();
meggert commented 2024-04-08 13:35:00 +02:00
Owner
Copy Link

if we are doing this twice, why did we not use the CLOCK_SET event then? it already contained old and new time. or are we really interessted in microseconds here?

if we are doing this twice, why did we not use the CLOCK_SET event then? it already contained old and new time. or are we really interessted in microseconds here?
muellerr commented 2024-04-08 13:42:12 +02:00
Author
Owner
Copy Link

events are cheap, and why lose resolution here? The correct approach probably would be to delete the weird CLOCK_SET event. If we still want to distinguish events which come from time changes, we could introduce, TIME_DUMP_BEFORE_CLOCK_UPDATE and TIME_DUMP_AFTER_CLOCK_UPDATE..

events are cheap, and why lose resolution here? The correct approach probably would be to delete the weird `CLOCK_SET` event. If we still want to distinguish events which come from time changes, we could introduce, `TIME_DUMP_BEFORE_CLOCK_UPDATE` and `TIME_DUMP_AFTER_CLOCK_UPDATE`..
meggert commented 2024-04-08 13:50:42 +02:00
Owner
Copy Link

I would advise splitting the events in those two types yes. Otherwise, this might be confusing for the operator. Calculating the time delta on ground is going to be more tricky now (but still possible if we store the parameter tm as actual tm). Maybe ask OPS what they prefer here

I would advise splitting the events in those two types yes. Otherwise, this might be confusing for the operator. Calculating the time delta on ground is going to be more tricky now (but still possible if we store the parameter tm as actual tm). Maybe ask OPS what they prefer here
muellerr commented 2024-04-09 11:11:19 +02:00
Author
Owner
Copy Link

done

done
src/fsfw/pus/Service9TimeManagement.cpp Outdated
@ -31,0 +66,4 @@
}
result = Clock::setClock(&newTime);
if (result == returnvalue::OK) {
reportTime(newTime);
meggert commented 2024-04-08 13:35:55 +02:00
Owner
Copy Link

the same here

the same here
src/fsfw/pus/Service9TimeManagement.cpp Outdated
@ -59,0 +100,4 @@
}
void Service9TimeManagement::reportTime(timeval time) {
triggerEvent(CLOCK_DUMP, time.tv_sec, time.tv_usec);
meggert commented 2024-04-08 13:36:40 +02:00
Owner
Copy Link

best function ever

best function ever
🚀 1
muellerr added 1 commit 2024-04-08 13:38:17 +02:00
muellerr added 1 commit 2024-04-09 10:57:26 +02:00
muellerr added 1 commit 2024-04-09 11:12:02 +02:00
muellerr merged commit 8b21dd276d into develop 2024-04-09 13:31:13 +02:00
muellerr deleted branch time-service-relative-timeshift 2024-04-09 13:31:15 +02:00
Sign in to join this conversation.
Reviewers
No reviewers
meggert
Labels
Clear labels
  
api change

API change

  
breaking api change

API change which can break existing code

  
bug

Something is not working

  
documentation

Documentation

  
duplicate

This issue or pull request already exists

  
feature

New feature

  
help wanted

Need some help

  
invalid

Something is wrong

  
question

More information is needed

  
wontfix

This won't be fixed

No Label
api change
breaking api change
bug
documentation
duplicate
feature
help wanted
invalid
question
wontfix
Milestone
Clear milestone
No items
No Milestone
Assignees
Clear assignees
No Assignees
2 Participants
Notifications
Due Date
The due date is invalid or out of range. Please use the format 'yyyy-mm-dd'.

No due date set.

Dependencies

No dependencies set.

Reference: eive/fsfw#173
No description provided.
Delete Branch "time-service-relative-timeshift"

Deleting a branch is permanent. Although the deleted branch may continue to exist for a short time before it actually gets removed, it CANNOT be undone in most cases. Continue?