On 09 September, 2015 - Jef Driesen wrote:
On 2015-09-09 14:12, Anton Lundin wrote:
On 04 September, 2015 - Jef Driesen wrote:
On 2015-09-04 08:28, Jef Driesen wrote:
What I meant was something like the attached patch: If all three values are zero, there are probably no sensors, and we ignore all three ppo2 samples. But if there is at least one non-zero value, we report all three values.
Now with the patch attached!
Yea, this one is a bit better than the quite blunt one i suggested, but still it behaves weirdly in the case you would have one cell who is unconnected (floating connection?) in the beginning and gets connected a couple of samples in. Then the sensors would be re-numbered.
This would be solved with having sensor id's =)
I'm probably misunderstanding, but my patch should avoid the renumbering problem. Assume we have 3 sensors, and one of them is disconnected, then we get something like this:
ppO2: 0 Y Z (Sensor 1 disconnected) ppO2: X 0 Z (Sensor 2 disconnected) ppO2: X Y 0 (Sensor 3 disconnected)
if it gets reconnected again later:
ppO2: X Y Z (All sensors connected)
Thus the order is always preserved. The i-th sample value is always from the i-th sensor. Thus although there is no explicit sensor id, it's implicit in the sample index. Only when all three sensors are disconnected, we drop the ppO2 sample completely.
Am I missing something else?
Was just me missreading the patch.
Go with this one.
//Anton