You signed in with another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You signed out in another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You switched accounts on another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.Dismiss alert
{{ message }}
This repository has been archived by the owner on May 4, 2023. It is now read-only.
The current design requires us to know whether or not a package is broken or not before grabbing the next one (since it skips any byte that are part of a good message) by passing the packet up the layers before continuing. This needs to be broken apart but there is a design decision that needs to be done:
Since we won't know if a packet is good or not (or rather, if broken ones are fixable) when grabbing data, should we always assume a packet is good and skip the next bytes that belong to it, or always assume its bad and find "subpackets"?
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered:
Portions of data that may be "interleaving" can be inserted into a vector or "bucket", once all of these has had an attempt at being fixed or all are Ok we can make the decision of which will be used. as such we should assume the packet is bad whenever the crc is bad.
Additionally the class "ModeSMessage" should be split into multiple classes for each stage.
One for when we first find it and simply wish to parse its crc status etc and one for when its fixed. This gives a more natural look into what a function expects from a message and cleans up the program structure.
The current design requires us to know whether or not a package is broken or not before grabbing the next one (since it skips any byte that are part of a good message) by passing the packet up the layers before continuing. This needs to be broken apart but there is a design decision that needs to be done:
Since we won't know if a packet is good or not (or rather, if broken ones are fixable) when grabbing data, should we always assume a packet is good and skip the next bytes that belong to it, or always assume its bad and find "subpackets"?
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: