Missing pO2 samples from CCR download [was: 4.7.8: a couple of questions]

[Jef Driesen]

On 11-06-18 20:21, Anton Lundin wrote:
> On 04 June, 2018 - Dirk Hohndel wrote:
> 
>> I don't have an outstanding patch from you, so not sure what you are referring to.
> 
> There was a diff a while back in this thread, in
> 20180523144751.GC12507 at hirohito.acc.umu.se , which made the code fall
> back to the voted/averaged ppo2 instead of reporting individual sensors
> if we couldn't find sane calibration values.
> 
> 
> Jef didn't like it, but I think its a step to a better place than where
> we're right now, and as far as I've read it, both Davide and Martin who
> is affected agrees.
> 
> 
> Anyway, now when I'm back on solid ground (I still feel the waves in my
> legs) I might get around to making up a commit message and formating it
> as a patch.

It's not that I really disliked the patch. I just wanted to point out that it 
introduces a possible disambiguity in the sense that in the application you no 
longer know which type of ppo2 you are getting (voted or sensor). I would rather 
go for a solution that indicates the type. That's exactly what's on my (long) 
todo list.

But I'm fine with your patch as an interim solution as well. Btw, an alternative 
could be to always deliver both the voted *and* the sensor ppO2. Then you know 
for sure that the first value is always the voted value, and the remaining ones 
(if present) are the sensor ones.

Jef