OSTC extra info (deco model and deco model info) not downloading correctly in newer Subsurface releases (5.0.7 and 5.0.8)

[JB2Cool]

I think this has been addressed now here (
https://github.com/subsurface/libdc/pull/32)

Jason

On Mon, 4 Apr 2022 at 09:21, JB2Cool <jb2cool at gmail.com> wrote:

> Someone replied over at the Heinrichs Weikamp forum (
> https://forum.heinrichsweikamp.com/viewtopic.php?p=23678#p23678) saying
> that it looks like libdivecomputer is using the wrong memory addresses for
> this information (this was correct previously). A pull request (
> https://github.com/subsurface/libdc/pull/32) has been generated that
> hopefully reverts this.
>
> I'll try to build locally with those adjustments and see if this
> straightens things out for me.
>
> Jason
>
> On Sun, 3 Apr 2022 at 20:33, JB2Cool <jb2cool at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Good evening,
>> I’ve downloaded some dives today and realised the 'extra info' on my OSTC
>> is not downloading correctly. I originally reported this to Heinrichs
>> Weikamp here (https://forum.heinrichsweikamp.com/viewtopic.php?t=22302)
>> as these were the first dives I’ve done on this new OSTC firmware but
>> subsequent troubleshooting makes this look like the issue is at the
>> Subsurface or libdivecomputer end.
>>
>> I’ve downloaded some older AppImages and this works fine on 5.0.5 and
>> 5.0.6 but shows the undesirable behaviour on 5.0.7 and 5.0.8.
>>
>> Extra info on dives with older versions of Subsurface look like:
>>
>> FW Version 3.17
>> Deco model ZH-L16-GF
>> Deco model info GF 30/85
>>
>> Now with the newest 2 versions of Subsurface extra info looks like:
>>
>> FW Version 3.18
>> Deco model ZH-L16
>> Deco model info Saturation 77, Desaturation 78
>>
>> It’s still doing this for dives that have downloaded fine in the past
>> where I know the dive was completed with the gradient factor model. This
>> only seems to affect newly downloaded dives, if something was downloaded
>> correctly in the past on a ‘good’ version then it will still display
>> correctly on a ‘bad’ version but if you were to download the dive again on
>> a ‘bad’ version then the issue would present itself (I may not be making
>> myself clear here).
>>
>> I've hopefully captured the relevant logs/dumps that will help with
>> troubleshooting.
>>
>> If I can provide screenshots or more information I'm of course happy to
>> do that.
>>
>> Regards
>> Jason
>>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.subsurface-divelog.org/pipermail/subsurface/attachments/20220404/3926fd0f/attachment.htm>