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

ADSB RX App cleanup #1569

Merged
merged 9 commits into from
Nov 10, 2023
Merged

Conversation

kallanreed
Copy link
Contributor

@kallanreed kallanreed commented Nov 9, 2023

Part half of attempt to understand why this app likes to stop working. The intention here was to do some thorough code gardening to see if there was something obvious that could be fixed. Also, I wanted to add some status indicators so if the problem happens again, we might have a better understanding about where the problem is.

Summary of changes:

  • I'm happy with the rewrite - was able to remove a lot of dead code and simplify quite a few ideas.
  • I didn't find any "smoking gun" which would indicate a problem in this layer so that points to a problem in the proc.
  • Added two status "dots" -- on that shows whenever a frame is passed up from Baseband, and a second whenever that frame passes CRC and has a valid ICAO key.

There is some slight differences in behavior w.r.t. how processing happens when there are more than 16 entries. I wasn't sure what the original code was attempting to solve for, but what I did was split apart list maintenance and UI redraw in that case so it's not doing a ton of work every tick when the list gets large. It might make more sense to chunk the work if there's more than 16, but you can't really chunk a sort/expiration.

One thing I did notice was that occasionally (usually immediately after flashing) I was seeing lots of frames come through without any of them being accepted. That lends more evidence to the idea that the proc is broken somehow.
Perhaps it's getting out of phase or something? It's just odd that it sends so much data that is just rejected.

Copy link
Member

@gullradriel gullradriel left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Good to go. Nice cleaning, it's already more clear to read.
Thanks Kal 👍

@gullradriel
Copy link
Member

@kallanreed I'm leaving the closing of the conversations to you, be assured that I read all your comments :-)

@kallanreed kallanreed merged commit f4f538f into portapack-mayhem:next Nov 10, 2023
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

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

2 participants