fsfw
/
fsfw
10
3
Fork 4
Code Issues 31 Pull Requests 5 Releases 10 Wiki Activity
Labels Milestones

Possible TC scheduler bugfix #738

Closed
muellerr wants to merge 3 commits from eive/fsfw:possible_tc_sched_fixes into development
Conversation 3 Commits 3 Files Changed 2
muellerr commented 4 months ago
Owner

I really think that logic is broken.

I really think that logic is broken.
muellerr added 2 commits 4 months ago
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 4 months ago
muellerr added this to the v6.0.0 milestone 4 months ago
muellerr added the bug label 4 months ago
muellerr added 1 commit 4 months ago
fsfw/fsfw/pipeline/pr-development This commit looks good Details
341a66c265
changelog
muellerr requested review from gaisser 4 months ago
muellerr requested review from mohr 4 months ago
muellerr removed review request for gaisser 4 months ago
muellerr commented 4 months ago
Poster
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.
mohr commented 4 months ago
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).
gaisser commented 3 months ago
Owner

Solved by #735

Solved by #735
gaisser closed this pull request 3 months ago
mohr removed this from the v6.0.0 milestone 3 months ago

Reviewers

mohr was requested for review 4 months ago
All checks were successful
fsfw/fsfw/pipeline/pr-development This commit looks good
Details
Please reopen this pull request to perform a merge.
Sign in to join this conversation.
Reviewers
Request review
No reviewers
mohr
Labels
Apply 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
Set milestone
Clear milestone
No items
No Milestone
Assignees
Assign users
Clear assignees
No Assignees
3 Participants
Notifications
Due Date

No due date set.

Dependencies

No dependencies set.

Reference: fsfw/fsfw#738
Write Preview
Loading…
Cancel
Save
There is no content yet.
Delete Branch 'eive/fsfw:possible_tc_sched_fixes'

Deleting a branch is permanent. It CANNOT be undone. Continue?

No
Yes