Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

GCS_MAVLink: routing: do not process our own packets locally #23240

Merged

Conversation

peterbarker
Copy link
Contributor

returning true from this method means we will process the packets locally.

If that message changes the vehicle state that could be bad.

This work sponsored by Harris Aerial.

returning true from this method means we will process the packets locally.

If that message changes the vehicle state that could be bad.
@peterbarker peterbarker added NeedsTesting For-4.5 Planned for 4.5 release labels Mar 17, 2023
@rmackay9
Copy link
Contributor

This seems correct to me.

Copy link
Contributor

@khancyr khancyr left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

LGTM. In worst case it will break some lib that use the mavlink coms to transmit packet between lib which would be a bad patern, so easy and best to fix if that happens

@tridge tridge merged commit 67bb741 into ArduPilot:master Mar 21, 2023
@peterbarker peterbarker deleted the pr/mavlink-routing-no-handle-own-packets branch March 22, 2023 03:20
@rmackay9
Copy link
Contributor

I think this change is the cause of this T265 failure reported by a user here in the forums: https://discuss.ardupilot.org/t/vision-positioning-using-t265-does-not-work/115679

I'm not saying we should revert this though. I think the user's T265 scripts are sending using the same system id and component id as the autopilot.

@rmackay9 rmackay9 mentioned this pull request Apr 11, 2024
92 tasks
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
For-4.5 Planned for 4.5 release NeedsTesting
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

4 participants