Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

MsgUtcTime implementation of gps_time is not checking status flags #1385

Closed
marcomaida94 opened this issue Nov 27, 2023 · 6 comments
Closed
Assignees

Comments

@marcomaida94
Copy link

Hello, I have experienced another inconsistency similar to #1363

When receiving this message:

{"crc":16174,"length":16,"msg_type":259,"msg_name":"MSG_UTC_TIME","payload":"ABQanwC8BwEGAjUuAOmkNQ==","preamble":85,"sender":789,"flags":0,"tow":10426900,"year":1980,"month":1,"day":6,"hours":2,"minutes":53,"seconds":46,"ns":900000000}

image

Seems like gps_time() is not checking the appropriate flag.

Thanks!

@marcomaida94
Copy link
Author

Good morning, did you have time to take a look at this?

Thanks!

@pcrumley
Copy link
Contributor

Hi @marcomaida94 thank you for bringing this issue to our attention. We haven't had a chance to look at it, but with a quick look it seems very similar to the other gps_time status flag issue and hopefully has a similar fix.

We'll let you know when a fix has been implemented.

@marcomaida94
Copy link
Author

Hello, Patrick. I agree with you that it is hopefully quite similar.

Thanks, will keep an eye on it!
Marco

@pcrumley
Copy link
Contributor

@marcomaida94 I haven't tried to reproduce this bug yet, but are you using the latest version of libsbp 5.0.4? It looks like this line here:

if self.time_source().ok()? == TimeSource::None {
should solve the issue.

@marcomaida94
Copy link
Author

marcomaida94 commented Dec 21, 2023

Hey @pcrumley , we might have different versions installed on different machines, so it might be that it was recorded not on a fully up-to-date version, though I was expecting this to come from a machine that already integrated #1363.

If you think this should be solved on your side, I am ok to close this issue and re-open in case we experience it again.

Thanks for looking into this!

@pcrumley
Copy link
Contributor

pcrumley commented Dec 21, 2023

@marcomaida94 we had a follow-up PR right after that which closed some additional gaps including this one: #1376

i think this should be fixed. let's close it and then you can re-open if you run into the issue again.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

3 participants