More RDM Responder tests#1999
Conversation
… if it's an ESTA PID OLA doesn't know about
aroffringa
left a comment
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Looks ok to me although I struggle with the context of the code. You're introducing a few 'const string' parameter which I suspect would be better to be reference types; I've marked those.
The C++ (or both languages), which bit or bits (or all of it) and I can try and give a bit more background.
Sorry I realised I should have taken your suggestions directly, although we've typically styled them slightly differently. |
I'm not familiar with all parts of the code (yet :D). I'll try to slowly read up more what's happening where. For now I think it's all good -- I think it's fine to merge. |
So very broadly (and apologies for any egg sucking) this PR is all about implementing more RDM (E1.20) commands. It's an in-band communications method on the existing DMX bus, allowing you to set start address for example (and much more). We implement a set of "conformance" tests, to try and see how well people are complying with the standards/spot errors in implementations (the Python code) and a set of dummy/fake responders for us (and others) to use to test their implementations (and our RDM tests) (the C++ code in this PR). This specific PR is adding some new PIDs (commands) that are part of E1.37-5 to our dummy responders (with common code to do the middle heavy lifting in ResponderHelper) and then tests in tools/rdm to test ours (and others) implementations of those (from an RDM perspective, rather than as a unit test). The standards are available to download from https://tsp.esta.org/tsp/documents/published_docs.php |
No description provided.