-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 13.7k
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
fw_pos_control_l1: move to px4::params #13305
Conversation
b56a9a1
to
59ff3ea
Compare
59ff3ea
to
117dc43
Compare
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
I couldn't find anything wrong, but would there be a way to test this properly?
From the existing CI we can see nothing is blatantly wrong. A quick flight verifying altitude and position control mode as well as catapult/hand launch would fill most of the coverage gaps. Then a pass of the logs to verify the expected limits were maintained, etc. As for the actual code, other than blatant typos we should carefully review the actual usage of the special cases where the parameter value was converted immediately (eg FW_MAN_R_MAX (degrees/s) -> _parameters.man_roll_max_rad (radians/s)). |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Also looks good from my side.
I've further SITL tested it on the standard VTOL a bit. Would also feel comfortable testing it on one of our small VTOLs next week, or should we ping the testing team for that?
_parameter_handles.speedrate_p = param_find("FW_T_SRATE_P"); | ||
_parameter_handles.loiter_radius = param_find("NAV_LOITER_RAD"); | ||
// if vehicle is vtol these handles will be set when we get the vehicle status | ||
_parameter_handles.airspeed_trans = PARAM_INVALID; |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Why is setting it here to PARAM_INVALID necessary? Isn't it already set correctly above?
Side note: is there actually something preventing us from using the new params API also in the VTOL module? If not then I'm happy helping out with that.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
It's not, this looks bogus.
Side note: is there actually something preventing us from using the new params API also in the VTOL module? If not then I'm happy helping out with that.
Just time. 😏
117dc43
to
36879ba
Compare
Codecov Report
@@ Coverage Diff @@
## master #13305 +/- ##
===========================================
- Coverage 53.53% 36.27% -17.26%
===========================================
Files 605 545 -60
Lines 51366 46886 -4480
===========================================
- Hits 27501 17010 -10491
- Misses 23865 29876 +6011
|
This is a quick initial pass to update fw_pos_control_l1 param usage. Needs to be reviewed carefully, then tested.