Commit
This commit does not belong to any branch on this repository, and may belong to a fork outside of the repository.
- Fix for changes to is_valid_address from 3474b15 - Remove dual writes from address response routing to help prevent issues
- Loading branch information
There are no files selected for viewing
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
| Original file line number | Diff line number | Diff line change |
|---|---|---|
|
|
@@ -184,8 +184,6 @@ uint8_t RF24Network::update(void) | |
| if(requester != node_address){ | ||
| header->to_node = requester; | ||
| write(header->to_node,USER_TX_TO_PHYSICAL_ADDRESS); | ||
| continue; | ||
| } | ||
| } | ||
|
|
@@ -1150,7 +1148,7 @@ uint16_t RF24Network::direct_child_route_to( uint16_t node ) | |
| bool RF24Network::is_valid_address( uint16_t node ) | ||
| { | ||
| bool result = true; | ||
| if(node == 0100 || node == 010){ return result; } | ||
This comment has been minimized.
Sorry, something went wrong.
This comment has been minimized.
Sorry, something went wrong. 
TMRh20
via email
Author
Member
|
||
| while(node) | ||
| { | ||
| uint8_t digit = node & 0x07; | ||
|
|
||
I understand the rationality for adding this check to this function, but this means that the user could essentially
which (I think) should be illegal.
Tell me I'm overthinking this and I'll back off. Otherwise I'll file another issue and adjust the
begin()definition to prevent this. I almost filed an issue about moving this line out of this function, thinking that only theheader.to_nodecould be set to 0100, but then I remembered about NETWORK_ACK types that can haveheader.from_nodeset to 0100.ps - what's up with the
node == 010check? I can't find anything in the other RF24* libs that might instigate that to be true. Is this to compensate some weird/faulty SPI transaction?