Skip to content

20211208 Dev Meeting

Jump to bottom Edit New page
Hamish Willee edited this page Dec 9, 2021 · 3 revisions

Agenda

General:

Notes

  • RFC 0016 - Mavlink Standard Modes - update to Proposal: Support for common flight modes #1750

    • Generally supportive.
    • Some concerns about heartbeat addition - mode isn't relevant to components and shouldn't be there - are we making it harder for ourselves by adding now.
    • Concern that the return mode is too general - to a user a rally point return looks like a flyaway. Splitting into own mode allows the GCS to inform the user something different might be happening.
    • Discussion about possible options - e.g. what is cost of using custom mode to infer standard mode so we don't update heartbeat.
    • Aim to move this forward so we can move to acceptance in next meeting.
    • DONE AO HamishW to update RFC.

  • Component status information discussion

    • James

      We can generically query static info about a component using the component information service. However it feels like we keep on reinventing the wheel on having generic status update - i.e we create gimbal status, radio status, Should we be looking at a generic component based mechanism to allow the vehicle to publish status about components - e.g. a component status definition file.

    • Julian takes view that this just changes where we do standardisation, and hence serves no purpose. It would not serve the same purpose as component info, which is to expose genuinely internal and highly configurable behaviour in a standard way
    • End result was that the conclusion is Events interface is the standard way of reporting non-standard status.

  • new message radio_status_extensions in development #1748

    • We're waiting on more suggestions from MartinaR (Auterion)

  • Component support flags should be versioned? (originates here Component Information Basics: add camera cap flag #1752 )

    • HamishW - we keep on adding support flags to things for the reason that we don't have "microservice versioning protocol".
    • We don't have to have that protocol, but we do need to clearly identify how we work with flags 'n'such.
    • Propose we continue to use flags but we always number them.
    • Briefly discussed holes in story for camera - need to work out what the old messages are used for/where and document as v1.

Did not discuss.

Attendees: ?HamishW, JamesP, JulianO, Matej, Lorenz, Ramon, Thomas Debrunner.

Add a custom footer
Add a custom sidebar
Clone this wiki locally