On Sat, Feb 16, 2019 at 11:34 AM Dan Smith via chirp_devel <chirp_devel@intrepid.danplanet.com> wrote:

Hi Dan,

> I cannot figure out how to submit an entirely new driver, so Its here as an attachment, along with the .img file.

It's pretty much the same as any other change. What are you struggling with? I just added a few lines to the developer process page about adding a new file in case it is not obvious:

https://chirp.danplanet.com/projects/chirp/wiki/DevelopersProcess#Soft-committing-a-Change

I would definitely prefer to integrate this as a patch if possible.

> This driver runs and passes the pep and tox tests on both Python 2 and Python 3. I am of course clueless about any python 2 and Python3 subtleties

Actually, it fails one test, BUT you didn't notice because I just realized the test adapter for unittest is broken in a subtle way. I just happened to run tests on your file manually since it wasn't in patch format and noticed that it failed that way but didn't with the automation. I will work on getting that fixed, but for now you can use the old test runner to see and fix the failures:

> $ cd tests; ./run_tests -d Yaesu_FT-4XR
> Yaesu FT-4XR Detect PASSED: All tests
> Yaesu FT-4XR Settings PASSED: All tests
> Yaesu FT-4XR Clone PASSED: All tests
> Yaesu FT-4XR Edges PASSED: All tests
> Yaesu FT-4XR BruteForce PASSED: All tests
> Yaesu FT-4XR CopyAll FAILED: <100>: Field `ctone' is `88.5', expected `156.7'
> Yaesu FT-4XR CopyAll FAILED: <101>: Field `ctone' is `88.5', expected `156.7'
> Yaesu FT-4XR CopyAll FAILED: <102>: Field `ctone' is `88.5', expected `156.7'
> Yaesu FT-4XR CopyAll FAILED: <103>: Field `ctone' is `88.5', expected `156.7'
> Yaesu FT-4XR CopyAll FAILED: <104>: Field `ctone' is `88.5', expected `156.7'
> Yaesu FT-4XR CopyAll FAILED: <105>: Field `ctone' is `88.5', expected `156.7'
> Yaesu FT-4XR CopyAll FAILED: <106>: Field `ctone' is `88.5', expected `156.7'
> Yaesu FT-4XR CopyAll FAILED: <107>: Field `ctone' is `88.5', expected `156.7'
> Yaesu FT-4XR CopyAll FAILED: <108>: Field `ctone' is `88.5', expected `156.7'
> Yaesu FT-4XR CopyAll FAILED: <109>: Field `ctone' is `88.5', expected `156.7'
> Yaesu FT-4XR CopyAll FAILED: <110>: Field `ctone' is `88.5', expected `156.7'
> Yaesu FT-4XR CopyAll FAILED: <111>: Field `ctone' is `88.5', expected `156.7'
> Yaesu FT-4XR CopyAll FAILED: <112>: Field `ctone' is `88.5', expected `156.7'
> Yaesu FT-4XR CopyAll FAILED: <113>: Field `ctone' is `88.5', expected `156.7'
> Yaesu FT-4XR CopyAll FAILED: <114>: Field `ctone' is `88.5', expected `156.7'
> Yaesu FT-4XR CopyAll FAILED: <115>: Field `ctone' is `88.5', expected `156.7'
> Yaesu FT-4XR CopyAll FAILED: <116>: Field `ctone' is `88.5', expected `156.7'
> Yaesu FT-4XR CopyAll FAILED: <117>: Field `ctone' is `88.5', expected `156.7'
> Yaesu FT-4XR CopyAll FAILED: <118>: Field `ctone' is `88.5', expected `156.7'
> Yaesu FT-4XR CopyAll FAILED: <124>: Field `ctone' is `88.5', expected `156.7'
> Yaesu FT-4XR CopyAll FAILED: <125>: Field `ctone' is `88.5', expected `156.7'
> Yaesu FT-4XR CopyAll FAILED: <127>: Field `ctone' is `88.5', expected `156.7'
> Yaesu FT-4XR CopyAll FAILED: <141>: Field `ctone' is `88.5', expected `156.7'
> Yaesu FT-4XR CopyAll FAILED: <142>: Field `ctone' is `88.5', expected `179.9'
> Yaesu FT-4XR CopyAll FAILED: <143>: Field `ctone' is `88.5', expected `179.9'
> Yaesu FT-4XR CopyAll FAILED: <144>: Field `ctone' is `88.5', expected `179.9'
> Yaesu FT-4XR CopyAll FAILED: <145>: Field `ctone' is `88.5', expected `179.9'
> Yaesu FT-4XR CopyAll FAILED: <146>: Field `ctone' is `88.5', expected `156.7'
> Yaesu FT-4XR CopyAll FAILED: <147>: Field `ctone' is `88.5', expected `156.7'
> Yaesu FT-4XR CopyAll FAILED: <148>: Field `ctone' is `88.5', expected `131.8'
> Yaesu FT-4XR CopyAll FAILED: <149>: Field `ctone' is `88.5', expected `131.8'
> Yaesu FT-4XR Banks PASSED: All tests
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> Results:
> TOTAL : 37
> FAILED : 31
> SKIPPED: 0
> PASSED : 6
> CRASHED: 0

It looks like you're always looking at mem.rtone instead mem.ctone when the tone mode is TSQL.

> There is no radio version and/or ID testing: I don't know how and I only have one radio.

What does this mean exactly? If it works with your radio you're probably okay. Right here it looks like you get back a version or identification string from the radio:

> if b"QX" != sendcmd(pipe, b"PROGRAM", 2):
> raise errors.RadioError("expected QX from radio.")
> version = sendcmd(pipe, b'\x02', 15)

If that is always the same for you, then it's probably good to just check that it's what you expect and fail if not.

> The FT-65 is assumed to be (almost) identical to the FT-4. The FT-65 has 4 programmable keys instead of 2 (I coded for these) and some settings I did not code for. I will get to those when I have more access to a FT-65

Okay, let's not register the FT-65 then (you can leave the definition there) until we get some confirmation that it works.

I also noticed that if I try to edit the first memory in your image to see the extra settings, I get a crash and traceback (and no dialog). Can you take a look at that?

I haven't gone through the code itself much yet. If you could do the patch thing according to the dev process, de-register the FT65, fix the test failures, and the mem.extra crash, I'd appreciate it. I'll work on getting the test adapter fixed.

Thanks!

--Dan
_______________________________________________
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