I will go deep in the details tomorrow but I was confident to have written correct checks for all cases. For sure they could be written in a more concise way as I choose to write them in an explicit but easy to reread manner.
I think that first of all they should be coherent with the documentation on the site ... I will check once again ...
73 de IZ3GME Marco
On 30/06/2012 03:22, Dan Smith wrote:
# HG changeset patch # User Dan Smith dsmith@danplanet.com # Date 1341019319 25200 # Node ID 6aff75e219ac3ce6953ac7d3d4768597a597529b # Parent e17c096f7da6e236ef3bfdd165564dda49ab043c Simplify some of the cross tone tests exceptions
I think that the existing ones were overly complicated _and_ not quite right. Specifically, checking for has_rx_dtcs is unnecessary and not appropriate, as tmode == "Cross" is really the only gating factor, and the txmode and rxmode values are what need to be checked.
If you apply this patch, along with the next two, you'll see that we have some logical inconsistencies with radios that support *->DTCS cross modes, but weren't changed to support rx_dtcs.
Marco, are these changes okay? Assuming the other drivers need to be fixed, of course...
diff -r e17c096f7da6 -r 6aff75e219ac tests/run_tests --- a/tests/run_tests Fri Jun 29 17:16:23 2012 -0700 +++ b/tests/run_tests Fri Jun 29 18:21:59 2012 -0700 @@ -179,18 +179,10 @@ ) ): continue
elif k == "dtcs" and not ((a.tmode == "DTCS" and not rf.has_rx_dtcs) or(a.tmode == "Cross" and tx_mode == "DTCS") or(a.tmode == "Cross" and rx_mode == "DTCS" and not rf.has_rx_dtcs)):
elif k == "dtcs" and ((a.tmode != "DTCS") or(a.tmode == "Cross" and tx_mode != "DTCS")): continue
elif k == "rx_dtcs" and (not rf.has_rx_dtcs ornot (a.tmode == "DTCS" or(a.tmode == "Cross" and rx_mode == "DTCS"))):
elif k == "rx_dtcs" and (a.tmode == "Cross" and rx_mode != "DTCS"): continue elif k == "offset" and not a.duplex: continue
chirp_devel mailing list chirp_devel@intrepid.danplanet.com http://intrepid.danplanet.com/mailman/listinfo/chirp_devel