Widen PRNs by mfine · Pull Request #185 · swift-nav/libsbp

mfine · 2015-06-24T19:20:45Z

Widen the PRN field and add some missing fields to the ephemeris (IODC). Also, a reserved field is being added to the ephemeris to capture future small fields we might want to capture (AODO, URA values, anti-spoof, alert flag).

Note a couple of things about deprecated messages: they're not in the deprecated package because sub structures make it non-feasible to move around (see #184). Also, since there can be multiple message deprecations, there's now a naming scheme for deprecations: DEPRECATED_<GREEK_LETTER>.

This just captures message definition changes. If things look alright, the rest of the changes will be worked in.

/cc @fnoble @henryhallam @mookerji @gsmcmullin

swiftnav-jenkins · 2015-06-24T19:21:22Z

Test PASSed.
Refer to this link for build results (access rights to CI server needed):
http://zazu.ci.swiftnav.com/job/libsbp_Pull_Requests/161/
Test PASSed.

swiftnav-jenkins · 2015-06-24T19:57:43Z

Test PASSed.
Refer to this link for build results (access rights to CI server needed):
http://zazu.ci.swiftnav.com/job/libsbp_Pull_Requests/162/
Test PASSed.

mookerji · 2015-06-26T17:32:11Z

spec/yaml/swiftnav/sbp/acquisition.yaml

@fnoble This is now dB-Hz, right?

I don't think acquisition results are presently reported as dbHz, only tracking C/No. We could change that.

That's probably worth doing, if only because it (i) seems like a low-cost/penalty change and (ii) is probably good to be consistent tracking/obs.

@mookerji @henryhallam resolution here? This wasn't part of the proposed change - should it be added in or is it out of scope?

I think it's out of scope for the time being, if only because there's no reason for making the accompanying change in the firmware right now.

I can put out a PR to fix this in the firmware real quick. I'm pretty certain it isn't used anywhere either in firmware or host-side so no plausible detrimental effects.

This is used in the automated testing / bring up script. I don't think it would be a big deal but we might have to adjust some threshold or tell Andrew that there has been a change. @cbeighley ?

Yes, will require changing the threshold. I've made an issue for this in piksi_bringup.

swift-nav/piksi_firmware#484

mookerji · 2015-06-26T17:53:57Z

lol @ deprecating message scheme.

mookerji · 2015-06-26T18:06:40Z

spec/yaml/swiftnav/sbp/acquisition.yaml

This sid descriptor seems a bit ambiguous. It may just be better to say something like: '24 MSB are empty. 8 LSB represent an L1 PRN - 1 identifier.' Otherwise, someone will ask, `What if it's 24 MSB are not empty?' and be confused. Similar feedback for the other field descriptions.

How about something like
"Values 0x00000000 through 0x0000001F represent GPS PRNs 1 through 32 respectively (PRN-1 notation). Other values reserved for future use."

@mookerji @henryhallam how about:

Signal identifier being tracked - values 0x00 through 0x1F represent GPS PRNs 1 through 32 respectively (PRN-1 notation); other values reserved for future use.

mfine · 2015-07-07T18:03:01Z

Rebased and picked up Henry's comments. Going to now start integrating into the rest of the code base.

swiftnav-jenkins · 2015-07-07T18:03:08Z

Test PASSed.
Refer to this link for build results (access rights to CI server needed):
http://zazu.ci.swiftnav.com/job/libsbp_Pull_Requests/191/
Test PASSed.

swiftnav-jenkins · 2015-07-07T19:21:18Z

Test PASSed.
Refer to this link for build results (access rights to CI server needed):
http://zazu.ci.swiftnav.com/job/libsbp_Pull_Requests/192/
Test PASSed.

mfine · 2015-07-07T19:21:45Z

Generated files, condensed naming.

swiftnav-jenkins · 2015-07-07T22:17:25Z

Test PASSed.
Refer to this link for build results (access rights to CI server needed):
http://zazu.ci.swiftnav.com/job/libsbp_Pull_Requests/193/
Test PASSed.

mookerji · 2015-07-09T17:44:35Z

I think you're going to have to rebase on the slots PR. It's going to conflict on the generated code, so after rebasing, regenerating the code should fix that issue.

swiftnav-jenkins · 2015-07-09T19:51:47Z

Test PASSed.
Refer to this link for build results (access rights to CI server needed):
http://zazu.ci.swiftnav.com/job/libsbp_Pull_Requests/205/
Test PASSed.

swiftnav-jenkins · 2015-07-09T20:01:33Z

Test PASSed.
Refer to this link for build results (access rights to CI server needed):
http://zazu.ci.swiftnav.com/job/libsbp_Pull_Requests/206/
Test PASSed.

mfine · 2015-07-09T20:01:58Z

@mookerji rebased.

mfine · 2015-07-09T22:50:40Z

The changes emanating from this PR and widening the PRN is captured in this PR and in the following other places:

swift-nav/piksi_tools#112
swift-nav/piksi_firmware#486
https://github.com/swift-nav/sbp_log_analysis/pull/229

Because the nature of this change, the following sequencing needs to happen:

Bring in the libsbp changes and publish the new library
Update the piksi_tools and sbp_log_analysis consumers of libsbp (these should be backwards compatible and able to support old and new message formats)
evaluate the piksi_firmware changes in HITL
bring in the piksi_firmware changes once the HITL results look good

How do people feel about these steps and changes?

mookerji · 2015-07-09T23:45:09Z

So given @mfine 's successful integration testing for the downstream dependencies, I'm pretty happy with the current change and the list of dependencies. The piksi_firmware change is going to require some thorough HITL testing.

swiftnav-jenkins · 2015-07-10T17:17:06Z

Test PASSed.
Refer to this link for build results (access rights to CI server needed):
http://zazu.ci.swiftnav.com/job/libsbp_Pull_Requests/209/
Test PASSed.

Widen PRNs

…grind memcheck [AP-3695] (#185) (#1482) Automated PR by Jenkins. If CI has passed successfully, merge away! **cmake** 361035b6 -> 61cdba17 - 61cdba17 : Add option for suppression file in valgrind memcheck [AP-3695] (swift-nav/cmake#185) This pull request was created by https://jenkins.ci.swift-nav.com/job/CI%20Infra/job/submodule-update/20444/. [AP-3695]: https://swift-nav.atlassian.net/browse/AP-3695?atlOrigin=eyJpIjoiNWRkNTljNzYxNjVmNDY3MDlhMDU5Y2ZhYzA5YTRkZjUiLCJwIjoiZ2l0aHViLWNvbS1KU1cifQ

mookerji reviewed Jun 26, 2015
View reviewed changes

mfine added the 2 - In Progress label Jul 7, 2015

mfine force-pushed the mfine-prn-widening branch from 151788c to 6b40134 Compare July 7, 2015 18:02

mfine mentioned this pull request Jul 7, 2015

Widen the PRN field swift-nav/piksi_firmware#486

Merged

mfine self-assigned this Jul 7, 2015

mfine added 4 - Code Review and removed 2 - In Progress labels Jul 7, 2015

mfine mentioned this pull request Jul 7, 2015

Remove the deprecated packages #184

Closed

mfine mentioned this pull request Jul 7, 2015

Promote Observations to Stable #165

Closed

mfine force-pushed the mfine-prn-widening branch from 7a59d74 to d305019 Compare July 9, 2015 19:51

mfine force-pushed the mfine-prn-widening branch from d305019 to 2081a4d Compare July 9, 2015 20:00

mfine mentioned this pull request Jul 9, 2015

Support for widened PRN swift-nav/piksi_tools#112

Merged

Widen PRN to 32 bits, call is a signal identifier.

42a8de9

mfine force-pushed the mfine-prn-widening branch from 2081a4d to 42a8de9 Compare July 10, 2015 17:16

mfine added a commit that referenced this pull request Jul 10, 2015

Merge pull request #185 from mfine/mfine-prn-widening

bd45695

Widen PRNs

mfine merged commit bd45695 into swift-nav:master Jul 10, 2015

mfine added 5 - Done and removed 4 - Code Review labels Jul 10, 2015

imh removed the 5 - Done label Jul 20, 2015

Conversation

mfine commented Jun 24, 2015

Uh oh!

swiftnav-jenkins commented Jun 24, 2015

Uh oh!

swiftnav-jenkins commented Jun 24, 2015

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

mookerji commented Jun 26, 2015

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

mfine commented Jul 7, 2015

Uh oh!

swiftnav-jenkins commented Jul 7, 2015

Uh oh!

swiftnav-jenkins commented Jul 7, 2015

Uh oh!

mfine commented Jul 7, 2015

Uh oh!

swiftnav-jenkins commented Jul 7, 2015

Uh oh!

mookerji commented Jul 9, 2015

Uh oh!

swiftnav-jenkins commented Jul 9, 2015

Uh oh!

swiftnav-jenkins commented Jul 9, 2015

Uh oh!

mfine commented Jul 9, 2015

Uh oh!

mfine commented Jul 9, 2015

Uh oh!

mookerji commented Jul 9, 2015

Uh oh!

swiftnav-jenkins commented Jul 10, 2015

Uh oh!

Reviewers

Assignees

Labels

Projects

Milestone

Development

Uh oh!

7 participants