plc4x-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Julian Feinauer <j.feina...@pragmaticminds.de>
Subject AW: Bugfix-Release 0.3.1
Date Wed, 13 Feb 2019 18:21:18 GMT
Hey,

Thank you Tim and Chris for the excellent detective work.. In fact you seem to be a really
good team, i observe.

So I agree to keep the hands down until you finished in develop and the n we start and prepare
an RC.

Julian

Von meinem Mobiltelefon gesendet


-------- Ursprüngliche Nachricht --------
Betreff: Re: Bugfix-Release 0.3.1
Von: Christofer Dutz
An: dev@plc4x.apache.org
Cc:

Oh wow ...

Well in that case we should fix this in develop and merge that to 0.3 branch prior to cutting
a 0.3.1 (Actually this makes the last fix obsolete or is a superset of it)

Chris


Am 13.02.19, 17:59 schrieb "Tim Mitsch" <t.mitsch@pragmaticindustries.de>:

    Hi Chris

    You have been completly right.
    I just made a test vs our device where reading an odd and an even number of array-items
(based on one-byte base type e.g. USINT).
    Reading a odd number this resulted in filling byte, whereas an even number did not have
a filling byte.

    I think we should implement this as well (dependent on configuration i could cause some
NPEs on reading) and validate behavior by a significant test.

    Best
    Tim


    Am 13.02.19, 16:12 schrieb "Christofer Dutz" <christofer.dutz@c-ware.de>:

        Hi Tim,

        I thought of reading an array of 3 bytes ... that should produce an odd number of
bytes in the response (Don't forget to request another item after that)

        Chris


        Am 13.02.19, 15:55 schrieb "Tim Mitsch" <t.mitsch@pragmaticindustries.de>:

            Hi Chris

            I thought about that too, but did not evaluate if something like this can happen.
            You mean something like odd-adress to even padding?!
            But the SPS is answering the base types requested isn't it, so there is no basic
type that has an odd length in byte except BYTE, USINT and all other one byte long datatypes,
or am i wrong.
            But before preparing BugFix-RC we'll should check this, you're right. Later this
day i can support with this.

            Best
            Tim


            Am 13.02.19, 15:42 schrieb "Christofer Dutz" <christofer.dutz@c-ware.de>:

                Hi all,

                last night I had another idea what we should check before triggering a new
release ...
                I was sort of wondering why we have to add an empty byte if the data is only
one byte long.
                Then I thought ... could it be that the device is using a WORD padding? So
it expects every part to be of an even number of bytes.
                If that was the case, if we read for example 3 bytes, we would get an additional
fill byte too.
                Then we should verify and eventually fix this before pushing out a 0.3.1.

                Chris


                Am 11.02.19, 19:26 schrieb "Julian Feinauer" <j.feinauer@pragmaticminds.de>:

                    Hey all,

                    I agree we should do this of 0.3 branch. Would be a good exercise with
cherry picking and so.

                    I suggest that I do the rm and Tim does all steps with me {we're working
together}.

                    Is this okay Tim or do you want to do everything on your own.?

                    Julian

                    Von meinem Mobiltelefon gesendet


                    -------- Ursprüngliche Nachricht --------
                    Betreff: Re: Bugfix-Release 0.3.1
                    Von: Christofer Dutz
                    An: dev@plc4x.apache.org
                    Cc:

                    Hi Tim,

                    I have no objections ... I guess you are in possession of a signed key?
(I think us signing stuff at the Finka ... but if not, Julian could always sign your key)
                    And having more people able to release is never a bad thing.

                    If this bug is causing you to have problems in production, I agree and
we should send a bugfix version (That would be released from the existing 0.3 branch).
                    So the bugfix would have to be cherry-picked into that branch. I doubt
it qualifies for a full release (0.4.0) as the only other significant change would have been
my work on the dynamic driver.

                    Chris




                    Am 11.02.19, 16:13 schrieb "Tim Mitsch" <t.mitsch@pragmaticindustries.de>:

                        Hallo everybody

                        As we just released version 0.3, we found (and already fixed within
develop-branch – thanks to Chris) a bug regarding exchange of One-Byte-long variables within
S7, where sometimes a filling Byte hast o be used.
                        This maybe leads to some strange behavior and it maybe be better to
release a bugfix version where this bug is fixed.
                        Julian (thanks for taking care about release of 0.3) as leader and
supervisor and me (I have to learn it as well) would care about the release process for this
bugfix release.

                        What do you think?

                        Best
                        Tim













Mime
  • Unnamed multipart/alternative (inline, None, 0 bytes)
View raw message