#585 was: Quick update

[Dirk Hohndel]

On Thu, Jul 03, 2014 at 12:21:13PM +0200, Robert Helling wrote:
> 
> when you are done, could you help me with #585? The problem seems to be the following:
> 
> in divelist.c there is the function init_decompression() which is supposed to go through the dive list and find dives that still influence tissue loadings of the current dive (in this case: in the planner). The rule is that we assume that after 48h all tissues are back to their surface values. So from the current dive we go back in time to find a surface interval of at least 48 hours. After that interval we take all the tissue loadings into account. There seem to be two problems:
> 
> 1) A minor one: the “going back in time” is done as a loop with 
> 
> 	while (i && —i)
> 
> where i is the index in the dive list. Here, it seems to me i==0 is a perfectly fine value, it is the first entry in the dive list. So the condition should rather be
> 
> 	while (i >= 0 && --i >= 0)

Yes, but that's equivalent to what we have.
while (i && --i) allows i = 1 which gets decremented to 0 before the loop
starts.

> Could somebody please confirm/refute this?

refute :-)

> 2) In the planner (this is why I write this), there seems to be a bogus dive in the dive list present which seems to be related to the dive that is currently planned and which for me is exactly one hour before the default date of the planner (i.e. now). That dive is then counted as influencing the deco of the planned one which is of course wrong. It seems to me this is one of the “staging dive” or “current dive”. As I know you are looking into this, I will not try to mess with trying to get rid of this dive or ignore it for pre saturation of tissues. May I just draw your attention to this problem and ask you to tell me when your open heart surgery has stabilized enough for me to further investigate this point?

Thanks - this problem will go away. There will be no stagingDive and the
freshly added / planned dive won't be on the divelist until it gets saved.

And may I just say that this is why I insist on that disclaimer? This
seems like a serious issue to me that hadn't been found in many attempts
to test and to compare to other planners...

/D