[PATCHES] Re: Problem with VPM-B in master

[Robert C. Helling]

Rick,

> On 23 Aug 2015, at 15:18, Rick Walsh <rickmwalsh at gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> Yes, there are very small ceiling violations in some cases I've tried.  If you can't devise a precise method to calculate a gradient that agrees exactly with the planned dive, we could relax the definition of a ceiling violation to excuse small (e.g. 0.3 m) violations.

the thing is: the profile does not recalculate that gradient. It should still be there from planning the dive.

Today, I have spent my day trying to write a test for the VPM-B part of the planner. Writing that test was easy. But making it agree with what the desktop program computes has so far proven impossible to me. This model holds so much non-trivial global state! I already found several things that were not properly initialised, but there is still more. Grrrrrr.

Best
Robert
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.subsurface-divelog.org/pipermail/subsurface/attachments/20150823/c946d68f/attachment.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 496 bytes
Desc: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail
URL: <http://lists.subsurface-divelog.org/pipermail/subsurface/attachments/20150823/c946d68f/attachment.sig>