Project

General

Profile

Bug #4012

Updated by Veronique bouzid almost 2 years ago

 
 Dans le test    /opt/VALIDATION_R3.3/lfrverif/LFR_SVS/SVS-0086/load_kcoeff_with_dump_v3-3.py 

 l'envoi d'un TC_LFR_LOAD_KCOEFFICIENTS avec KCOEFF_FREQ = 0, KCOEFF_1 = 1065353216    à KCOEFF_32 = 1065353216 
  ne doit pas modifier les    KCOEFF contenus dans la TM_LFR_KCOEFFICIENTS_DUMP. 


 Extrait  

 *TM_LFR_KCOEFFICIENTS_DUMP* , CCSDS_VERSION_NUMBER = 0, PACKET_TYPE: TM_PACKET = 0, DATA_FIELD_HEADER_FLAG: WITH_HEADER = 1, PROCESS_ID: RPW_PID_2 = 76, PACKET_CATEGORY: FUNCTIONAL_NON_CYCLIC = 6, (PACKET_ID=0xcc6), SEGMENTATION_GROUPING_FLAG: STANDALONE_PACKET = 3, SEQUENCE_CNT=2, (PACKET_SEQUENCE_CONTROL=0xc002), PACKET_LENGTH=3393, SPARE_1=0, PUS_VERSION = 1, SPARE_2=0, SERVICE_TYPE: EQ_CONFIGURATION = 181, SERVICE_SUBTYPE: KCOEFFICIENTS_DUMP = 96, DESTINATION_ID: MISSION_TIMELINE = 110, TIME=0x8000000d233f, PA_LFR_HK_SID: LFR_KCOEFF_SID = 11, PA_LFR_KCOEFF_PKT_CNT=2, PA_LFR_KCOEFF_PKT_NR=1, PA_LFR_KCOEFF_BLK_NR=26, *SY_LFR_KCOEFF_FREQUENCY=0, SY_LFR_KCOEFF_1=1065353216, SY_LFR_KCOEFF_2=1065353216, SY_LFR_KCOEFF_3=1065353216, SY_LFR_KCOEFF_4=1065353216, SY_LFR_KCOEFF_5=1065353216, SY_LFR_KCOEFF_6=1065353216, SY_LFR_KCOEFF_7=1065353216, SY_LFR_KCOEFF_8=1065353216, SY_LFR_KCOEFF_9=1065353216, SY_LFR_KCOEFF_10=1065353216, SY_LFR_KCOEFF_11=1065353216, SY_LFR_KCOEFF_12=1065353216, SY_LFR_KCOEFF_13=1065353216, SY_LFR_KCOEFF_14=1065353216, SY_LFR_KCOEFF_15=1065353216, SY_LFR_KCOEFF_16=1065353216, SY_LFR_KCOEFF_17=1065353216, SY_LFR_KCOEFF_18=1065353216, SY_LFR_KCOEFF_19=1065353216, SY_LFR_KCOEFF_20=1065353216, SY_LFR_KCOEFF_21=1065353216, SY_LFR_KCOEFF_22=1065353216, SY_LFR_KCOEFF_23=1065353216, SY_LFR_KCOEFF_24=1065353216, SY_LFR_KCOEFF_25=1065353216, SY_LFR_KCOEFF_26=1065353216, SY_LFR_KCOEFF_27=0, SY_LFR_KCOEFF_28=0, SY_LFR_KCOEFF_29=0, SY_LFR_KCOEFF_30=0, SY_LFR_KCOEFF_31=0, SY_LFR_KCOEFF_32=0* 

 On voit bien que seuls les KCOEFF allant de 1 à 26 ont récupéré la valeur modifiée par la TC_LFR_LOAD_KCOEFFICIENTS_alors défaut alors que les KCOEFF de 27 à 32 sont bien restés à zéro (valeurs par défaut mises au boot).  

 

 +Ici les valeurs de référence récupérées au boot+ 

 *TM_LFR_KCOEFFICIENTS_DUMP* , CCSDS_VERSION_NUMBER = 0, PACKET_TYPE: TM_PACKET = 0, DATA_FIELD_HEADER_FLAG: WITH_HEADER = 1, PROCESS_ID: RPW_PID_2 = 76, PACKET_CATEGORY: FUNCTIONAL_NON_CYCLIC = 6, (PACKET_ID=0xcc6), SEGMENTATION_GROUPING_FLAG: STANDALONE_PACKET = 3, SEQUENCE_CNT=0, (PACKET_SEQUENCE_CONTROL=0xc000), PACKET_LENGTH=3393, SPARE_1=0, PUS_VERSION = 1, SPARE_2=0, SERVICE_TYPE: EQ_CONFIGURATION = 181, SERVICE_SUBTYPE: KCOEFFICIENTS_DUMP = 96, DESTINATION_ID: MISSION_TIMELINE = 110, PA_LFR_HK_SID: LFR_KCOEFF_SID = 11, PA_LFR_KCOEFF_PKT_CNT=2, PA_LFR_KCOEFF_PKT_NR=1, PA_LFR_KCOEFF_BLK_NR=26, *SY_LFR_KCOEFF_FREQUENCY=0, SY_LFR_KCOEFF_1=1050859893, SY_LFR_KCOEFF_2=1051774863, SY_LFR_KCOEFF_3=3199048410, SY_LFR_KCOEFF_4=3199675526, SY_LFR_KCOEFF_5=1048105208, SY_LFR_KCOEFF_6=1049731468, SY_LFR_KCOEFF_7=3199884855, SY_LFR_KCOEFF_8=3201093691, SY_LFR_KCOEFF_9=1002946415, SY_LFR_KCOEFF_10=993270132, SY_LFR_KCOEFF_11=1052396741, SY_LFR_KCOEFF_12=1051678457, SY_LFR_KCOEFF_13=3193633745, SY_LFR_KCOEFF_14=3195990147, SY_LFR_KCOEFF_15=3202344225, SY_LFR_KCOEFF_16=3204016481, SY_LFR_KCOEFF_17=3191761623, SY_LFR_KCOEFF_18=3194781000, SY_LFR_KCOEFF_19=0, SY_LFR_KCOEFF_20=2147483648, SY_LFR_KCOEFF_21=3164388996, SY_LFR_KCOEFF_22=3169957665, SY_LFR_KCOEFF_23=3164388996, SY_LFR_KCOEFF_24=3169957665, SY_LFR_KCOEFF_25=3156000388, SY_LFR_KCOEFF_26=3161569057, SY_LFR_KCOEFF_27=0, SY_LFR_KCOEFF_28=0, SY_LFR_KCOEFF_29=0, SY_LFR_KCOEFF_30=0, SY_LFR_KCOEFF_31=0, SY_LFR_KCOEFF_32=0* 

 *QUESTION 
 ---------------- 
 Est ce un bug ou bien le comportement attendu?* 

 Contexte du test 
 ---------------------- 
 FSW 3.3.0.11 et 3.3.0.12 
 VHDL 1.1.91 
 EM2 sans Timegen 
 SocExplorerEngine.getSocExplorer: Version = 0.7.0, Branch = 0.6, Changeset = c459540a6dbd+ 
 StarDundee

Back