PUS11 TC sched update and bugfixes #632
No reviewers
Labels
No Label
API Change
Breaking API Change
bug
build
cosmetics
Documentation
duplicate
feature
help wanted
hotfix
invalid
question
Refactor
Tests
wontfix
No Milestone
No Assignees
2 Participants
Notifications
Due Date
No due date set.
Dependencies
No dependencies set.
Reference: fsfw/fsfw#632
Loading…
Reference in New Issue
Block a user
No description provided.
Delete Branch "mueller/tc-11-tweaks"
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?
clang-tidy
improvementsthe timefield
ENABLE
andDISABLE
to enable and disable TC schedulingand
RESET
to clear the telecommand mapMore questions than real requests.
@ -58,3 +48,1 @@
TIMEBASE_SCHEDULE_DETAIL_REPORT = 10,
TIMESHIFT_ALL_SCHEDULE_ACTIVITIES = 15
};
enum [[maybe_unused]] Subservice : uint8_t{ENABLE_SCHEDULING = 1,
Why do we need "maybe_unused" here?
I think I wondered this myself. Maybe because some enum values are unused? This warning should not appear if the enum is public though..
Some enum values are just not used, because those services are unimplemented
@ -84,3 +82,2 @@
struct TelecommandStruct {
uint64_t requestId;
uint32_t seconds;
uint64_t requestId{};
Is this better than = 0?
No, was automatically done by clang-tidy and I don't really care how the zero-initialization is done. Can change it to 0
@ -24,3 +24,3 @@
<< storeId.packetIndex << std::endl;
#endif
TcMqMapIter queueMapIt = this->queueMap.end();
auto queueMapIt = this->queueMap.end();
Hm, I don't get why auto is recommended in such places. The old variant is much easier to understand.
clang-tidy recommends using auto for iterator declarations: https://clang.llvm.org/extra/clang-tidy/checks/modernize-use-auto.html
PUS11 TC sched bugfix and some tweaksto PUS11 TC sched update and bugfixesLGTM