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

Control Channel Retune Handling #954

Merged
merged 3 commits into from
May 3, 2024

Conversation

tadscottsmith
Copy link
Contributor

This should help address the issue of the control channel trying to retune to an active traffic channel.

  • Adds an INVALID_CC_MESSAGE message type for messages that are not correctly parsed and does not count them for control channel msgs/sec. Note that UNKNOWN messages are still counted in cases of correctly parsed messages with an unknown opcode.

  • Adds a TDULC message type when the parser receives a TDU with Link Control on a channel it believes should be a control channel. The specs indicate there should not be Link Control messages on an active control channel, so this immediately causes a retune to the next available control channel.

@robotastic robotastic merged commit a3eda60 into robotastic:master May 3, 2024
1 check passed
robotastic added a commit that referenced this pull request May 3, 2024
robotastic added a commit that referenced this pull request May 3, 2024
@robotastic
Copy link
Owner

Could you make this PR against the v5.0 branch instead? It looks like it is changing some of the functions that moved around in the newer branch, making it trickier to merge in the future.

@tadscottsmith
Copy link
Contributor Author

Sure! I'll give that a shot tomorrow. I know the PR looks a lot nastier than it really is because I had to move the retune_system function definition above the handle_message function so I could reference it. It really only adds about 20 lines.

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