Bug #535
closed
Field HK_LFR_LAST_EXE_TC_SUBTYPE incorrect if aTC_LFR_LOAD_FBINS_MASK has been sent
0%
Description
La commande TC_LFR_LOAD_FBINS_MASK n'est pas bien décrite dans le packet TM_LFR_HK.
En effet, le champ SERVICE_SUBTYPE: LOAD_FBINS_MASK = 93 devient dans la TM_LFR_HK, HK_LFR_LAST_EXE_TC_SUBTYPE=91.. Par contre les autres champs
- HK_LFR_LAST_EXE_TC_ID=0x1ccc, HK_LFR_LAST_EXE_TC_TYPE=181, HK_LFR_LAST_EXE_TC_TIME=0x8000008f2ebb sont corrects
12:00:09.661454, TC_LFR_LOAD_FBINS_MASK, CCSDS_VERSION_NUMBER = 0, PACKET_TYPE: TC_PACKET = 1, DATA_FIELD_HEADER_FLAG: WITH_HEADER = 1, PROCESS_ID: RPW_PID_2 = 76, PACKET_CATEGORY: PRIVATE_SCIENCE_OR_TELECOMMAND = 12, (PACKET_ID=0x1ccc), SEGMENTATION_GROUPING_FLAG: STANDALONE_PACKET = 3, SEQUENCE_CNT=10208, (PACKET_SEQUENCE_CONTROL=0xe7e0), PACKET_LENGTH=53, CCSDS_SECONDARY_HEADER_FLAG=0, PUS_VERSION = 1, ACK_EXECUTION_COMPLETION=1, ACK_EXECUTION_PROGRESS=0, ACK_EXECUTION_START=0, ACK_ACCEPTANCE=1, SERVICE_TYPE: EQ_CONFIGURATION = 181, SERVICE_SUBTYPE: LOAD_FBINS_MASK = 93, SOURCE_ID: RECOVERY_ACTION_CMD = 112, FBINS_F0_WORD1 = 0xffffffff,FBINS_F0_WORD2 = 0xffffffff,FBINS_F0_WORD3 = 0xffffffff,FBINS_F0_WORD4 = 0xffffffff,FBINS_F1_WORD1 = 0xffffffff,FBINS_F1_WORD2 = 0xffffffff,FBINS_F1_WORD3 = 0xffffffff,FBINS_F1_WORD4 = 0xffffffff,FBINS_F2_WORD1 = 0xffffffff,FBINS_F2_WORD2 = 0xffffffff,FBINS_F2_WORD3 = 0xffffffff,FBINS_F2_WORD4 = 0xffffffff,CRC = 0x1147
12:00:09.670408, TM_LFR_TC_EXE_SUCCESS, CCSDS_VERSION_NUMBER = 0, PACKET_TYPE: TM_PACKET = 0, DATA_FIELD_HEADER_FLAG: WITH_HEADER = 1, PROCESS_ID: RPW_PID_2 = 76, PACKET_CATEGORY: ACKNOWLEDGE = 1, (PACKET_ID=0xcc1), SEGMENTATION_GROUPING_FLAG: STANDALONE_PACKET = 3, SEQUENCE_CNT=690, (PACKET_SEQUENCE_CONTROL=0xc2b2), PACKET_LENGTH=13, SPARE_1=0, PUS_VERSION = 1, SPARE_2=0, SERVICE_TYPE: TELECOMMAND_VERIFICATION = 1, SERVICE_SUBTYPE: TC_EXECUTION_COMPLETION_SUCCESS = 7, DESTINATION_ID: RECOVERY_ACTION_CMD = 112, TIME=0x8000008f2ebb, PA_RPW_TELECOMMAND_PKT_ID=0x1ccc, PA_RPW_PKT_SEQ_CONTROL=0xe7e0
12:00:09.680432, TM_LFR_HK, CCSDS_VERSION_NUMBER = 0, PACKET_TYPE: TM_PACKET = 0, DATA_FIELD_HEADER_FLAG: WITH_HEADER = 1, PROCESS_ID: RPW_PID_2 = 76, PACKET_CATEGORY: HK_ROUTINE = 4, (PACKET_ID=0xcc4), SEGMENTATION_GROUPING_FLAG: STANDALONE_PACKET = 3, SEQUENCE_CNT=141, (PACKET_SEQUENCE_CONTROL=0xc08d), PACKET_LENGTH=129, SPARE_1=0, PUS_VERSION = 1, SPARE_2=0, SERVICE_TYPE: HOUSEKEEPING_AND_DIAGNOSTIC_DATA_REPORTING = 3, SERVICE_SUBTYPE: HK_PARAMETER_REPORT = 25, DESTINATION_ID: GROUND = 0, TIME=0x8000008f31b4, PA_LFR_HK_REPORT_SID: LFR_HK_SID = 1, HK_LFR_MODE: NORMAL = 1, HK_LFR_DPU_SPW_ENABLED: ENABLED = 1, HK_LFR_DPU_SPW_LINK_STATE: RUN = 5, SPARE=0x0, HK_LFR_SC_POTENTIEL_FLAG: ON = 1, HK_LFR_MAG_FIELDS_FLAG: OFF = 0, SY_LFR_WATCHDOG_ENABLED: DISABLED = 0, HK_LFR_CALIB_ENABLED: DISABLED = 0, HK_LFR_RESET_CAUSE: POWER_ON = 1, SY_LFR_SW_VERSION_N1=3, SY_LFR_SW_VERSION_N2=0, SY_LFR_SW_VERSION_N3=0, SY_LFR_SW_VERSION_N4=9, SY_LFR_FPGA_VERSION_N1=1, SY_LFR_FPGA_VERSION_N2=1, SY_LFR_FPGA_VERSION_N3=89, HK_LFR_CPU_LOAD=11.7647058824, HK_LFR_CPU_LOAD_MAX=16.862745098, HK_LFR_CPU_LOAD_AVE=0.0, HK_LFR_Q_SD_FIFO_SIZE_MAX=4, HK_LFR_Q_SD_FIFO_SIZE=50, HK_LFR_Q_RV_FIFO_SIZE_MAX=1, HK_LFR_Q_RV_FIFO_SIZE=10, HK_LFR_Q_P0_FIFO_SIZE_MAX=1, HK_LFR_Q_P0_FIFO_SIZE=10, HK_LFR_Q_P1_FIFO_SIZE_MAX=1, HK_LFR_Q_P1_FIFO_SIZE=10, HK_LFR_Q_P2_FIFO_SIZE_MAX=1, HK_LFR_Q_P2_FIFO_SIZE=5, HK_LFR_UPDATE_INFO_TC_CNT=0, HK_LFR_UPDATE_TIME_TC_CNT=0, HK_LFR_EXE_TC_CNT=609, HK_LFR_REJ_TC_CNT=55, HK_LFR_LAST_EXE_TC_ID=0x1ccc, HK_LFR_LAST_EXE_TC_TYPE=181, HK_LFR_LAST_EXE_TC_SUBTYPE=91, HK_LFR_LAST_EXE_TC_TIME=0x8000008f2ebb, HK_LFR_LAST_REJ_TC_ID=0x1ccc, HK_LFR_LAST_REJ_TC_TYPE=181, HK_LFR_LAST_REJ_TC_SUBTYPE=41, HK_LFR_LAST_REJ_TC_TIME=0x800000598e1b
Cette fois j'ai bien verifié le fichier tm.csv et les valeurs sont identiques à celles communiquées ci-dessous. Donc pas de probleme de traduction.
le script utilisé est /opt/VALIDATION_R3/lfrverif/LFR_SVS/SVS-0019/tm_sequence_counter_loop.py et les fichiers de test
sont rangés dans /home/validation/data/R3/3.0.0.9/1.1.89/SVS-0019.
--> Vérifiez le comportement en cas d'erreur en attendant à chaque fois la HK pour vérifier les champs.
J'ai retrouvé un jeu de test datant du 13/05/2015 (/home/validation/data/R3/JUST-STBY-FBINS) , le bug etait déja présent et la version du soft 3.0.0.0.
Donc l'erreur ne vient pas des modifications récentes.
Contexte du test
----------------
FSW 3.0.0.9
VHDL 1.1.89
EM sans Timegen
SocExplorerEngine.getSocExplorer: Version = 0.6.2, Branch = default, Changeset = 819d0376d481
StarDundee
Updated by Veronique bouzid over 8 years ago
Hello,
Paul je viens de voir que je me suis trompée , la cde TC_LFR_LOAD_FBINS_MASK doit avoir un SUB-TYPE = 91 et non 93 comme je l ai mis.
Je corrige donc mon erreur mais cela n explique pas pourquoi tu n'as recopié correctement le champ.
Updated by Veronique bouzid over 8 years ago
- Status changed from New to Closed
erreur de ma part, je testais bien 91 mais j ai écrit 93 dans la fonction Detail.txt