-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 176
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
Packet Integrity Check #245
Comments
What are you thinking about here YH? I haven't been able to think up any improvements on this one. |
Follow this up and close it. |
Done by 4648538. |
found another place for improvements |
Done. |
This a relatively large commit - can you briefly explain what you did here? Was there also a second commit? If so, link it. |
All related commits are already listed in this page. 9 month ago, I added length field in sub-payload of protocol for compatibility among various firmware - driver pairs. Issue #168. But, driver was not actually using it in packet validation. There was also no actual exception handling on validation failure, when packet class return false on deserialize call, such as removing malformed sub-payload. It will fall in infinite while loop. Commit Summary
|
Ok, thanks. Do we need to test this thoroughly next week or have you been using it for a while? |
It is very recent commit, and I tested it shortly. We need some test. |
I would prefer not to have critical driver functionality updates going in the day before a major release without any testing. Would have been better more than a week ago, or delayed until some decent testing on it saw it through. We'll manage this time, but please be a bit more careful before a major product release next time. |
Actual implementation to prevent communication failure due to malformed bytestream.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: