subsurface.git/dives, branch v3.1

Adjust test dives to comply with the current trip syntax

2013-05-16T04:36:34Z

Otherwise the tests fail - we no longer support the old format. Signed-off-by: Dirk Hohndel

Suunto DM4 sample dive

2013-03-05T19:08:08Z

Both in .db and exported XMK format. Signed-off-by: Miika Turkia Signed-off-by: Dirk Hohndel

Test dives

2013-02-26T16:50:05Z

On Tue, Feb 26, 2013 at 6:19 PM, Dirk Hohndel wrote: > Miika Turkia writes: > >> On Tue, Feb 26, 2013 at 5:54 PM, Dirk Hohndel wrote: >>> Miika Turkia writes: >>> >>>> On Tue, Feb 26, 2013 at 6:45 AM, Dirk Hohndel wrote: >>>>> I added a few test dives exported from other software (Dm3, DiveLog 5.08, >>>>> JDiveLog 10.2 from Mac - last one doesn't parse because of encoding... Also >>>>> a composed XML zip file from DiveLog isn't supported, yet) >>>>> Find them under dives >>>> >>>> Now this gets interesting. Is there ANY logic in the units in the >>>> dives/TestDiveDiveLog5.08.xml? It seems that some of the temperatures >>>> are in C (Airtemp and Watertemp) and some in F (samples). Otherwise I >>>> would guess we are talking metric here, but I do not see any specs >>>> (another log I have seen from DivingLog had all the units in metric, >>>> as far as I could guess). BTW is the Weight in kg or lb? >>> >>> I have purchased DivingLog and should be able to create any combination >>> of data for the test file that we could possibly want. I'll do a set in >>> a moment that describe what SHOULD be there in their notes, maybe that >>> will clear things up. >>> >>> That said, I really want to release 3.0.1 in the next couple of hours, >>> so this may have to wait for 3.0.2 (if we end up needing that) or 3.1. >>> >>>> The divelogs.de UDCF format looks like it shouldn't take long to write >>>> support for. I'll look into it this evening. >>> >>> It is evening for you, right? No pressure, just making sure I understand >>> what may be coming in in patches in the next hour or two >> >> I currently have one version of the DivingLog XSLT. So a bit of >> verification and that could possibly be used as is. However, this >> could use a bit more testing than a new support to make sure things >> are not going to be any worse than they currently are. >> >> I have not started with the UDCF yet, but that could be reasonably >> fast to implement. However, no guarantees. (And yes, it is evening for >> me) > > I can hold off 3.0.1 a couple hours longer if that is a realistic thing > to do. I don't see the UDCF as that important since we have a different > format from them that we support. So I think the best possible DivingLog > support would be my preference. > > I'll add a few more exported dives from DivingLog next (and fix the > naming of the existing ones). In that case, here is the DivingLog XSLT if anyone can give it a test. miika From 4a62058f4f6fd4780f04bce6e1fe45e20abcf33f Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Miika Turkia Date: Tue, 26 Feb 2013 17:46:53 +0200 Subject: [PATCH] XSLT for DivingLog Signed-off-by: Miika Turkia Signed-off-by: Dirk Hohndel

Update DivingLog 5.08 export files

2013-02-26T16:39:09Z

Two XML files, one all imperial, one all metric Quick inspection shows that there is no indication whatsoever on metric vs imperial in the file. That is of course completely moronic and makes automated import more or less impossible. I also added a different zip file from DivingLog - quick analysis shows that this is simply the corresponding xml file, wrapped in a zip container. So this should be trivial to add. Signed-off-by: Dirk Hohndel

Add two more versions of this dive from divelogs.de

2013-02-26T06:07:05Z

The DLD is imported perfectly, the udcf is not. Signed-off-by: Dirk Hohndel

Add the same test dive in a number of different formats

2013-02-26T04:28:58Z

Suuntu DM3 DiveLog 5.08 XML DiveLog 5.08 UDDF DiveLog 5.08 UDCF DiveLog 5.08 compressed zip (we don't support that) JDiveLig 10.2 from Mac (fails because of ecoding) Signed-off-by: Dirk Hohndel

Fix SAC calculations for dives without any samples

2013-02-24T19:25:44Z

We computed a made-up average depth based on the maximum depth, and used that. That's questionable even if we didn't have any explicit average depth to begin with, but it's particularly wrong if we did have an explicit average depth to use. Now, admittedly we have no way to actually create fake dives like this with a particular average depth, so this really doesn't make any difference in real life. But we should do this right. Also, make the XML be in the format that subsurface actually saves things in (mainly things like cylinder sizes having an extra decimal place, but also ordering of XML elements). Signed-off-by: Linus Torvalds Signed-off-by: Dirk Hohndel

Correctly calculate SAC rate in the presense of surface events

2013-02-24T19:09:52Z

This assumes that you are not breathing your cylinders while at the surface, which may or may not be correct, but is usually the right thing. Regardless, we're better off giving a conservative (higher) SAC rate estimate for a diver that breathes his cylinder at the surface too than giving an artificially low one because the diver ended up using his snorkel and we didn't take that into account. NOTE! This basically calculates a better duration and average depth than the ones we end up showing in the dive list. Maybe we should actually show this "no-surface-time" duration and average depth instead of the ones we do show? That's a separate question, though. Added a test-case for the surface case to the sac-test.xml dives. Signed-off-by: Linus Torvalds Signed-off-by: Dirk Hohndel

Fix up SAC calculations for ATM/bar confusion

2013-02-24T18:49:26Z

We even documented that we did SAC in bar*l/min, but the "S" in SAC stands for "Surface". So we should normalize SAC rate to surface pressure, not one bar. It's a tiny 1% difference, and doesn't actually matter in practice, but it's noticeable when you want to explicitly test for SAC-rate by creating a test-dive that averages exactly 10m. Suddenly you don't get the round numbers you expect. [ Side note: 10m is not _exactly_ one extra atmosphere according to our calculations, but it's darn close in sea water: the standard salinity of 1.03 kg/l together with the standard acceleration of 9.81m/s^2 gives an additional pressure of 1.01 bar, which is within a fraction of a percent of one ATM. Of course, divers have likely chosen that value exactly for the math to come out that way, since the true average salinity of seawater is actually slightly lower ] So here's a few test-dives, along with the SAC rate fixup to make them look right. (There's also a one-liner to dive.c that makes the duration come out right if the last sample has a non-zero depth, and the previous sample did not: one of my original test-dives did the "average 10m depth" by starting at 0 and ending at 20m, and dive.c got a tiny bit confused about that ;) [ The rationale for me testing our SAC rate calculations in the first place was that on snorkkeli.net user "Poltsi" reported that our SAC rate calculations differ from the ones that Suunto DM4 reports. So I wanted to verify that we did things right. Note that Poltsi reported differences larger than the difference of BAR/ATM, so this is not the cause. I'll continue to look at this. ] Signed-off-by: Linus Torvalds Signed-off-by: Dirk Hohndel

Add test dive for constant temperature

2013-01-24T21:19:16Z

Making sure that this doesn't cause divisions by zero and that the scaling and positioning doesn't get messed up by it (right now it doesn't look great). Signed-off-by: Dirk Hohndel