Conversation
raffael0
changed the title
raffael0
force-pushed
the
6-config-management
branch
from
8e688a7 to
fef7569
Compare
- created a rust representation of the sample_config.toml, which now successfully deserializes # Conflicts: # Cargo.lock # src/main.rs
- Added config field necesssary for message handling � Conflicts: � src/message_handling/message_handler.rs � src/message_handling/mod.rs � src/protocol/payloads.rs
- Implemented most of the message handling
- Added can interface to config
Remove old code
raffael0
force-pushed
the
6-config-management
branch
from
fef7569 to
d0bdad6
Compare
|
I think this PR should implement most of the required stuff to get it working with FerroFlow. Some smaller stuff is still missing. Like sending status messages |
miDeb
left a comment
miDeb
left a comment
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Looks good! I'm sure it's going to be very helpful in development: I already found one bug in ferroflow / the spec: Currently ferroflow promotes a node from "registering" as soon as it got all field definitions. However, if telemetry group definitions arrive later, we don't find the node among the "registering" ones. We could fix it in ferroflow and also allow registering telemetry groups after the node "was ready", or maybe add a telemetry group count to the node info announcement...
Anyway that was a bit off-topic, I'll play around a bit more with it and the configuration as I add some more things to ferroflow the next days, I think this is very nice!
|
Nice thanks! So you ran both versions already? Good to know that it works :) Can't we just check for the total number of telemetryvalues already received? And compare that to the tel_count in the node info? Because every telemetry value has to be in one group - even though that's not explicitly defined I think it can be implied |
I guess so, I'll implement it in a new PR in FF |
2 participants
I still have some stuff to do, namely: