fsfw/fsfw
fsfw/fsfw
10
3
Fork 6
Code Issues 32 Pull Requests 4 Releases 10 Wiki Activity

Thoughts on DHB PowerSwitchIF #20

New Issue
Closed
opened 2020-03-24 15:29:30 +01:00 by gaisser · 3 comments
gaisser commented 2020-03-24 15:29:30 +01:00
Owner
Copy Link
  • Think about making the PowerSwitchIF setting optional. Devices without switches will call it even though the have no switch. The example is another software on the SOURCE PLOC. In every other aspect it behaves like a physical device but has no switches.
  • Furthermore, DHB uses a static to initialize the powerSwitcher at the moment. This has some advantages in comfort but duplicates information as every device only uses the static information for initializing its internal pointer. So, theoretical you are able to set different PowerSwitchIFs for different DHBs but in reality the init value is always taken from the static objectId.
- Think about making the PowerSwitchIF setting optional. Devices without switches will call it even though the have no switch. The example is another software on the SOURCE PLOC. In every other aspect it behaves like a physical device but has no switches. - Furthermore, DHB uses a static to initialize the powerSwitcher at the moment. This has some advantages in comfort but duplicates information as every device only uses the static information for initializing its internal pointer. So, theoretical you are able to set different PowerSwitchIFs for different DHBs but in reality the init value is always taken from the static objectId.
gaisser added the
feature
 label 2020-03-24 15:29:30 +01:00
taheran commented 2020-03-26 11:21:24 +01:00
Member
Copy Link

This is quite useful for ESBO, we have devices that we do not control their power switch, and interfaces that behave as a device but have no switches.

This is quite useful for ESBO, we have devices that we do not control their power switch, and interfaces that behave as a device but have no switches.
mohr commented 2020-03-31 11:59:46 +02:00
Owner
Copy Link

Proposed Solution as of 31.03.20:

Proposed Solution as of 31.03.20: - in [initialize()](https://egit.irs.uni-stuttgart.de/fsfw/fsfw/src/branch/master/devicehandlers/DeviceHandlerBase.cpp#L614): Check if the static Id is [NO_OBJECT](https://egit.irs.uni-stuttgart.de/fsfw/fsfw/src/branch/master/objectmanager/frameworkObjects.h#L15). If so, do not initialze [powerSwitcher](https://egit.irs.uni-stuttgart.de/fsfw/fsfw/src/branch/master/devicehandlers/DeviceHandlerBase.h#L225) - Change default implementation of [getSwitches()](https://egit.irs.uni-stuttgart.de/fsfw/fsfw/src/branch/master/devicehandlers/DeviceHandlerBase.cpp#L794) to return [NO_SWITCH](https://egit.irs.uni-stuttgart.de/fsfw/fsfw/src/branch/master/devicehandlers/DeviceHandlerBase.h#L150) - Access to [powerSwitcher](https://egit.irs.uni-stuttgart.de/fsfw/fsfw/src/branch/master/devicehandlers/DeviceHandlerBase.h#L225) is protected by a check of [commandSwitch](https://egit.irs.uni-stuttgart.de/fsfw/fsfw/src/branch/master/devicehandlers/DeviceHandlerBase.h#L1006), so in default implementation it is not dereferenced - Remove the [setDeviceSwitch](https://egit.irs.uni-stuttgart.de/fsfw/fsfw/src/branch/master/devicehandlers/DeviceHandlerBase.h#L74) constructor parameter from DHB, let the child implementation handle it - Make [powerSwitcher](https://egit.irs.uni-stuttgart.de/fsfw/fsfw/src/branch/master/devicehandlers/DeviceHandlerBase.h#L225) private to dissuade users from dereferencing it - Make [commandSwitch](https://egit.irs.uni-stuttgart.de/fsfw/fsfw/src/branch/master/devicehandlers/DeviceHandlerBase.h#L1006) protected - Keep [powerSwitcher](https://egit.irs.uni-stuttgart.de/fsfw/fsfw/src/branch/master/devicehandlers/DeviceHandlerBase.h#L225) a member of DHB, no better solution found
gaisser commented 2020-09-07 14:03:04 +02:00
Author
Owner
Copy Link

This is part of #144

This is part of #144
Sign in to join this conversation.
No Branch/Tag Specified
Branches Tags
Labels
Clear labels   
API Change

Changes the API, so Users need to adapted

  
Breaking API Change

Changes the API in a non backwards compatible way

  
bug

Something is not working

  
build

Issues related to the buildsystem, including CI

  
cosmetics

Small change most users won't notice

  
Documentation

Improvement of code documentation

  
duplicate

This issue or pull request already exists

  
feature

New feature

  
help wanted

Need some help

  
hotfix

Quick or important fix that is merged directly into master, causing a new revision

  
invalid

#worksforme

  
question

More information is needed

  
Refactor

Contains a refactoring of some code

  
Tests

Issues related to testing code

  
wontfix

This won't be fixed

No Label
API Change
Breaking API Change
bug
build
cosmetics
Documentation
duplicate
feature
help wanted
hotfix
invalid
question
Refactor
Tests
wontfix
Milestone
Clear milestone
No items
No Milestone
Assignees
Clear assignees
No Assignees
3 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: fsfw/fsfw#20
No description provided.
Delete Branch "%!s()"

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?