Problems since last update

[Stefan Fuchs]

Hi Everybody,

Am 18.12.2017 um 19:17 schrieb Dirk Hohndel:
> I thought we had prohibited GFlow below 30... or something like that.
> Ah, no, reading the commit it limits it to 10 and GFhigh to 40.
> I wonder if there's something that goes wrong with the value '10'
> there (well, clearly it is).
>
> Stefan, you're the last person to touch that code, would you take a
> look, please?
>
> /D
>
>> On Dec 18, 2017, at 10:10 AM, Alexander Maier <maieralex at me.com
>> <mailto:maieralex at me.com>> wrote:
>>
>> Hello,
>>
>> since the last update the graph is not always correct. Today I planed
>> a dive with GF low 10% and the graph shows 100%. When setting the GF
>> low to 11% (hope to get a correct graph) I get violations. Does
>> anybody know’s why there are problems since the last update?
>>
I spent some time on this issue but was not really successful:
- I was not able to reproduce the issue with GFlow 100 printed in the
profile while in reality 10 is entered in the UI
- I in fact was able to reproduce strange effects when using low GFlow
values (<~15). This is similar to what Alexander reported.
  And I am able to add something to Alexanders report that may help to
understand the issue:
If you set GFlow to low values by entering a number or clicking the down
arrow you end up with incorrect results if you go below a certain value.
With one of my example dive it happens below ~15, with another dive it
starts at another value.
If you now in this state - GFlow set to e.g. 10 - change another setup
in the UI the ceiling is recalculated again with different results but
the plan is not updated which results in the ceiling violation. Hmmm...
pretty difficult to explain the result...
For me it seems that the recalculations of ceiling and plan are not
triggered correctly and simultaneously or not always with the correct
values.

I didn't do a real git bisect yet but I checked that
subsurface-4.7.4-112-gfa57bb46f2e4 is still ok which means that my
change limiting the gflow/high in the UI file to 10/40 is not the root
cause.

Maybe Robert and/or Rick could have a look at this as well?


>>


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.subsurface-divelog.org/pipermail/subsurface/attachments/20171223/6e407401/attachment-0001.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: GF low.jpeg
Type: image/jpeg
Size: 541174 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.subsurface-divelog.org/pipermail/subsurface/attachments/20171223/6e407401/attachment-0002.jpeg>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: GF low switch.jpeg
Type: image/jpeg
Size: 551478 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.subsurface-divelog.org/pipermail/subsurface/attachments/20171223/6e407401/attachment-0003.jpeg>