Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

[ENHANCEMENT] Configuration of anomalous faults #40

Open
linguini1 opened this issue Nov 1, 2023 · 0 comments
Open

[ENHANCEMENT] Configuration of anomalous faults #40

linguini1 opened this issue Nov 1, 2023 · 0 comments
Labels
enhancement New feature or request

Comments

@linguini1
Copy link
Collaborator

Please note that this issue is dependent on the completion of #36.

Problem

Packets are received very frequently and are subject to interference/noise, which may result in corrupted measurements being received. This will trigger anomalous fault detection incorrectly.

Additionally, what is considered an anomalous measurement for Spaceport might not be anomalous at Launch Canada (i.e. a temperature of 50 degrees Celsius on the launch pad at Spaceport is expected).

Proposed Solution

The threshold at which an anomalous fault is reported should be configurable, both in the value considered anomalous and how many packets within that range need to be received before a warning is issued.

For instance, this configuration for temperature at Spaceport (inside spaceport.json) says that a warning should be issued if at least 3 packets in a row are received which report a temperature lower than 10C or higher than 60C.

{
  "measurement": "temperature",
  "range": [10, 60],
  "packet_min": 3,
}

Additional Context

This configuration file's path should be able to be provided via both command line options or within the config.json file. Any config file provided over command line arguments will be used over the one within config.json.

The reasoning for a separate config file is to have different presets for each different competition/launch setting.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
enhancement New feature or request
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

2 participants