Hi Dan I still think this patch is correct. To convince yourself of this look at the tone documentation page and also compare the cross-dtcs and cross-tone part in run_tests code.
I know I should have conviced you a long ago ;)
73 de IZ3GME Marco
On 10/01/2013 00:43, Dan Smith wrote:
Marco (and the list):
Jim was just working on rx_dtcs support for the UV-5R and he's using mem.rx_dtcs in the code incidentally, which was causing the BruteForce test to fail. I went to go make the test allow that, effectively ignoring the rx_dtcs value unless tmode==Cross and the rx_mode==DTCS. I made this change, which fixed his problem, but also made the test that's been failing for a long time (due to my negligence) pass:
diff -r e9d7ec130a1f tests/run_tests --- a/tests/run_tests Wed Jan 09 13:19:45 2013 -0800 +++ b/tests/run_tests Wed Jan 09 15:40:19 2013 -0800 @@ -188,11 +188,7 @@ ): continue elif k == "rx_dtcs" and (not rf.has_rx_dtcs or
not (a.tmode == "DTCS" or(a.tmode == "Cross" and rx_mode == "DTCS"))):
not (a.tmode == "Cross" and rx_mode =="DTCS")): continue elif k == "offset" and not a.duplex: continue
I've lost track of what we were arguing about regarding this, but is the above change okay with you? Is it what you wanted in the first place? If so, do you remember what my objection was? I could look through the archives, but I'm not sure I want to re-convince myself... :)
chirp_devel mailing list chirp_devel@intrepid.danplanet.com http://intrepid.danplanet.com/mailman/listinfo/chirp_devel Developer docs: http://chirp.danplanet.com/projects/chirp/wiki/Developers