| ??? 08/10/11 09:25 Read: times |
#183283 - RE: increase the error detection capability Responding to: ???'s previous message |
Oliver Sedlacek said:
I've each command as a single byte, and I've chosen from only the ASCII printable bytes. This means that all commands are atomic, and I can exercise my target from a terminal program without having to write a test app Good thinking! increase the error detection capability by chosing different command bytes Not sure what you mean by that? Do you mean having something like a "hamming distance" between your codes? If so you might want to consider both the hamming distance between the code values - to protect against signal corruption - and the physical distance between the key on the keyboard - to protect against finger errors! Alternatively, why not add a CRC or Checksum? You could still represent the check code value using ASCII-only text (eg, as NMEA does); You could arrange some "special case" value to indicate "do not check" - to make it easier when typing manually... |
| Topic | Author | Date |
| Error detecting codes over RS232 | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| RE: increase the error detection capability | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| How complex? | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| Hamming distance | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| Hamming distance really not a good choice | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| KISS | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| Transfer size? | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| Transfer Size --- | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| Parameter free | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
Transfer Size --- | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| double command and CR | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| a bit more involved and better | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| Double Characters... | 01/01/70 00:00 |