-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 203
Disregard OD variable description in SdoClient.upload() #592
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
Open
acolomb
wants to merge
10
commits into
canopen-python:master
Choose a base branch
from
acolomb:sdo-upload-disregard-od
base: master
Could not load branches
Branch not found: {{ refName }}
Loading
Could not load tags
Nothing to show
Loading
Are you sure you want to change the base?
Some commits from the old base branch may be removed from the timeline,
and old review comments may become outdated.
Open
Changes from all commits
Commits
Show all changes
10 commits
Select commit
Hold shift + click to select a range
66d0bb2
Avoid truncating unknown types in SDO upload.
acolomb 28c9ed8
Disregard OD variable description in SdoClient.upload().
acolomb 9c517f5
Simplify slice.
acolomb bfbfa7c
Test expedited upload with 8 byte padded frame.
acolomb a016a06
Merge branch 'master' into sdo-upload-disregard-od
acolomb 03cee34
Really unspecified size.
acolomb f1fb47e
Another test?
acolomb 2ab61c7
Coverage for conditional response_size < len(data).
acolomb 3f19dd6
Add comments to test traffic.
acolomb b431e91
Add better comments to test traffic.
acolomb File filter
Filter by extension
Conversations
Failed to load comments.
Loading
Jump to
Jump to file
Failed to load files.
Loading
Diff view
Diff view
There are no files selected for viewing
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Oops, something went wrong.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
I'm a little conflicted on what takes precedence: The actual amount of data transferred in the SDO, or the data size indicated by the size fields. Does the 301 standard mention this at all?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
I haven't found any solution to this dilemma in the standard. My interpretation is that specifying the size in advance is the definitive answer. I doubt it will ever make a difference, as that would be a pretty awful server implementation.
In the end, what counts is the receiver's (client's) understanding of the data. And for that, the OD is needed anyway. If someone needs the full data in addition to the indicated size (to check for differences), they can just use the
.open()
API directly, without this mid-level convenience API.Uh oh!
There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
When making protocol one should hope for the best and plan for the worst and not just expect happy path. So I believe its just to figure out how to resolve when a remote server replies with odd responses.
There are datatypes which is variable, such as string (which happens to be used in the test for this PR), so the OD cannot resolve them all.
Many times I'd wished that the protocol test suite from CiA would be public so we could see how they resolve it.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Well, one almost sound reason I could see for sending extra data would be string termination. For convenience, the size might indicate the string length, but the data could be extended to include a NUL terminator byte. Which kind of makes sense in a C-based implementation.
Anyway, since there is already an alternative API in this library (file stream), let's wait and see if anybody comes back complaining about this change. I doubt many people are even using this API directly.