Possible TC scheduler bugfix #738

Closed
muellerr wants to merge 3 commits from eive/fsfw:possible_tc_sched_fixes into development
Owner

I really think that logic is broken.

I really think that logic is broken.
muellerr added 2 commits 2023-02-09 18:20:45 +01:00
fsfw/fsfw/pipeline/pr-development This commit looks good Details
b9b076aa4c
logic error
muellerr changed title from Possible TC scheduler to Possible TC scheduler bugfix 2023-02-09 18:20:51 +01:00
muellerr added this to the v6.0.0 milestone 2023-02-09 18:21:01 +01:00
muellerr added the
bug
label 2023-02-09 18:21:05 +01:00
muellerr added 1 commit 2023-02-09 18:22:05 +01:00
fsfw/fsfw/pipeline/pr-development This commit looks good Details
341a66c265
changelog
muellerr requested review from gaisser 2023-02-09 18:26:11 +01:00
muellerr requested review from mohr 2023-02-09 18:26:17 +01:00
muellerr removed review request for gaisser 2023-02-09 18:26:18 +01:00
Author
Owner

This is included in #735 so maybe not necessary.

This is included in https://egit.irs.uni-stuttgart.de/fsfw/fsfw/pulls/735 so maybe not necessary.
Owner

As far as the logic goes, it is intended behavior that commands that are scheduled too close in the future are rejected.
This is an operational requirement as one should not upload scheduled TCs so close to execution time.

Thinking about it, I am not sure if it really belongs into the flight software, but I think the operational impact is minimal and would keep it to be backward compatible.

Also, agree on #735 fixing the integer underflow (unintentionally. While I recognized that line as suboptimal I actually did not realize the underflow).

As far as the logic goes, it is intended behavior that commands that are scheduled too close in the future are rejected. This is an operational requirement as one should not upload scheduled TCs so close to execution time. Thinking about it, I am not sure if it really belongs into the flight software, but I think the operational impact is minimal and would keep it to be backward compatible. Also, agree on #735 fixing the integer underflow (unintentionally. While I recognized that line as suboptimal I actually did not realize the underflow).
Owner

Solved by #735

Solved by #735
gaisser closed this pull request 2023-02-20 14:27:11 +01:00
mohr removed this from the v6.0.0 milestone 2023-02-23 13:26:13 +01:00
All checks were successful
fsfw/fsfw/pipeline/pr-development This commit looks good

Pull request closed

Sign in to join this conversation.
No description provided.