On Nov 16 2016 9:11 AM, Chris Radek wrote: > On Wed, Nov 16, 2016 at 08:15:42AM -0600, dragon wrote: >> Below is a link to an email thread where Ben Potter submitted a >> patch >> set to implement g71 into the interpreter in 2012. It was never >> accepted. >> >> >> https://sourceforge.net/p/emc/mailman/emc-users/thread/000601cd831d%24bc81b600%2435852200%24%40org/#msg29723177 >> >> Andy Pugh has updated the patch set to apply to the 2.8 branch (big >> thanks Andy!)... >> >> https://github.com/LinuxCNC/linuxcnc/tree/BenPotter/G71 >> >> I would really appreciate some feedback as to what needs done for >> this >> to get accepted. I don't want to spend a bunch of time on it if it >> isn't >> going to go anywhere. It would be great if it can be used as a >> starting >> point to finally get the lathe roughing cycles implemented. >> >> Thanks, >> Todd > > Hi Todd, it was good to meet you at fest and I'm glad you're still > interested in this. It looks like Ben's work is a terrific starting > point, and I am super excited and I want to help you however I can. > > I did a basic review and added some comments to > > > https://github.com/LinuxCNC/linuxcnc/commit/0da9a50f30bb575d557b6617fa0fb0b228216f43 > > Here are my thoughts about what it would take to make this > mergeable, in approximate order of my own feeling about importance, > from necessary to wishful: > > Verify by eyeball the output for a variety of paths and fixup > accordingly > > Verify that non-type-1 paths always give an appropriate error > message (and not bogus motion). I think I found an error check that > was wrong (I added a comment), so I think this is not well-tested > yet. > > Verify that you can't easily break the algorithm without getting > suitable error messages, such as by doing things like changing units > in the middle of the profile definition, switching between radius > and diameter modes, mixing IK and R arcs, using R arcs with negative > radius, N words out of order, block delete, requesting multiturn > arcs, requesting depths that are negative or bigger than the path, > etc etc. and convince yourself it always either gives a good path or > gives a coherent error
with all this verification and reproducing errors, please try to write a unit test for the testing framework -- so that we can catch it if/when it breaks. EBo -- ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ _______________________________________________ Emc-developers mailing list Emc-developers@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/emc-developers
