Mark,
the client_app.pl hint was good, I had not recognized that as a
server query utility yet.
I removed the comma (misread the draft) and can now see my H
entries. However, that lead me back to my assumed connectivity
issue:
MP-0 c31,0,2,6,RTPWR-BattCell,1,1,76,2012-12-17 23:18:43,2012-12-17
23:18:43
MP-0 c31,0,3,6,RT-PWR-BattCell,14,16,1215,2012-12-17
23:13:11,2012-12-17 23:18:43
MP-0 c31,0,4,6,RT-PWR-BattC�ll,1,1,65,2012-12-17 23:18:43,2012-12-17
23:18:43
MP-0 c31,0,5,6,RT-PWR-BattPack,1,2,202,2012-12-17
23:13:11,2012-12-17 23:18:43
MP-0 c31,0,6,6,RT-PWR-Usag,1,1,45,2012-12-17 23:13:11,2012-12-17
23:13:11
This C31 result shows all kinds of garbled chars in my module's
messages, and even a truncation on "RT-PWR-UsageStats" (also missing
parts on the data blob on that one).
Now that's a bit odd and most probably cannot be connected to a GPRS
link failure -- as that would not garble single bytes in a TCP
connection.
I could fix some similar output problems in DIAG mode more than once
by reducing complex sprintf() calls, so I searched for C18 sprintf()
stack usage and found nothing concrete, but many warnings about very
high stack usage of the whole printf family, plus advice not to use
them at all on small embedded systems. One source mentioned
sprintf() will need 70+ bytes stack for a simple integer template.
I also have read a bit into the C18 software stack management and
found my previous assumption to be correct: it's currently fixed to
bank 12 (0xC00), so provides 256 bytes for any kind of parameter +
local vars combination. I think sprintf() on a 256 byte stack could
well be a source of problems... and stack overruns can produce weird
effects, as those above. I think about rewriting all my sprintf
calls to itoa/ltoa/ultoa, but find it strange they did no harm up to
now, even with complex templates as in net_msgp_environment(). Or
maybe they did, unrecognized?
Do you have some other info on C18 sprintf()? I'd rather avoid
recoding every output without sprintf(), but that's my best bet
currently...
Regards,
Michael
Am 17.12.2012 07:37, schrieb Mark
Webb-Johnson:
This has been completed, and is now live on both tmc and
development OVMS servers.
Server identifies itself as 2.1.1-20121216.
It was implemented in three places:
- A new "H" record type - not stored in the carmessages
table, but inserted with a timestamp into
historicalmessages.
- A new command 31 - retrieving a summary of what historical
data the server has for the vehicle.
- A new command 32 - retrieving detailed historical data
records of the specified type.
I haven't implement data expunging yet. It is actually a
one-liner, but I've left it out on purpose, since I want to see
what data is added to make sure everything works correctly.
Michael: Can you try to send your battery data with this new
"H" type, and let me know when done so I can check server
storage.
It is a pretty simple change to the sample client_app.pl code
to retrieve the summary and/or detailed historical records, if
you want to see for yourself.
Regards, Mark.
On 16 Dec, 2012, at 10:28 AM, Mark Webb-Johnson wrote:
Ok.
But, lets keep the *- prefix for generic. Easier to
split the fields later in the database, and only 2 bytes
extra per record.
I'll try to get the server side of this done today.
Too fast... regarding the class definitions, to
achieve readability here as well I would then suggest
using a 3 letter abbreviation.
...main classes:
Power PWR
Engine ENG
Transmission TRX
Chassis CHS
Body BDY
Electrics ELC
...auxiliary classes?
Safety SAF (Chassis, Body,
Electrics)
Security SEC (Power?, Body,
Electrics)
Comfort CMF (Chassis, Body,
Electrics)
Entertainment ENT (Body, Electrics)
Communication COM (Body, Electrics)
Also I would prefer "-" as a separator over ".".
For my current application (battery pack + cell data),
that would result in type codes...
RT-PWR-BattPack
RT-PWR-BattCell
...or general form
*-PWR-BattPack
*-PWR-BattCell
Btw: general purpose codes could be written without
"*-" prefix as well? That would be...
PWR-BattPack
PWR-BattCell
Regards,
Michael
Am 15.12.2012 12:01,
schrieb Michael Balzer:
Silly me just assumed you'd prefer integer... I'm
using text codes in my own DB designs whenever
possible due to readability.
In other words: of course! :-)
I'll modify my code now accordingly.
Am 15.12.2012 11:48,
schrieb Mark Webb-Johnson:
The coding looks good, and sensible.
How about we just make it a text string,
rather than integer. Much clearer to read, and
almost no impact on size.
VV.C.P
VV the normal vehicle types, or '*' for
generic.
C your class
P your property
On 15 Dec, 2012, at 6:53 AM, Michael Balzer <
dexter@expeedo.de>
wrote:
Mark, List,
Am 04.12.2012
20:43, schrieb Michael Balzer:
For general purpose type codes, maybe some
classification scheme would make sense?
Maybe adopt some standard scheme already
defined for automotive data? ...if there is
one...
It seems there is none suitable, so here's my
attempt at defining one. Please comment.
Regards,
Michael
Type classification scheme:
id size: 32 bit integer
Generic / standard props:
0x 0000 C PPP
Vehicle specific props:
0x VVVV C PPP
VVVV = Vehicle ID
0001 = Tesla Roadster
0002 = Tesla Model S
0003 = GM Volt / Opel Ampera
0004 = Renault Twizy
...
C = Class:
...main classes:
0 = Power
1 = Engine
2 = Transmission
3 = Chassis
4 = Body
5 = Electrics
...auxiliary classes?
6 = Safety (Chassis, Body,
Electrics)
7 = Security (Power?, Body,
Electrics)
8 = Comfort (Chassis, Body,
Electrics)
9 = Entertainment (Body, Electrics)
a = Communication (Body, Electrics)
b = reserved
c = reserved
d = reserved
e = reserved
f = reserved
PPP = Property
...allowing for 4096 properties per class.
--
Michael Balzer * Paradestr. 8 * D-42107 Wuppertal
Fon 0202 / 272 2201 * Handy 0176 / 206 989 26
<dexter.vcf>
_______________________________________________
OvmsDev mailing list
OvmsDev@lists.teslaclub.hk
http://lists.teslaclub.hk/mailman/listinfo/ovmsdev
--
Michael Balzer * Paradestr. 8 * D-42107 Wuppertal
Fon 0202 / 272 2201 * Handy 0176 / 206 989 26
_______________________________________________
OvmsDev mailing list
OvmsDev@lists.teslaclub.hk
http://lists.teslaclub.hk/mailman/listinfo/ovmsdev
--
Michael Balzer * Paradestr. 8 * D-42107 Wuppertal
Fon 0202 / 272 2201 * Handy 0176 / 206 989 26
<dexter.vcf>
_______________________________________________
OvmsDev mailing list
OvmsDev@lists.teslaclub.hk
http://lists.teslaclub.hk/mailman/listinfo/ovmsdev
--
Michael Balzer * Paradestr. 8 * D-42107 Wuppertal
Fon 0202 / 272 2201 * Handy 0176 / 206 989 26