Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

More information in CSV: add accuracy, filtered data and improve speed #114

Open
3 tasks done
offtherailz opened this issue Dec 16, 2019 · 6 comments
Open
3 tasks done
Assignees

Comments

@offtherailz
Copy link
Member

offtherailz commented Dec 16, 2019

  • an additional field should be added to the CSV to discriminate if data has been filtered (by this custom build) or not (by the normal app). This field will discriminate between normal usage or unipi (not filtered data, with custom conf.json, see New build profile 'unipi'  #113)
  • accuracy, retrieved from Location.getSpeedAccuracyMetersPerSecond should be added too in the CSV
  • we should check if is possible to distinguish between 0 speed or NaN speed (in case it's not available, now it always results 0). [Location.hasSpeed]

Dev Notes:

  • All the new fields must be added at the end of the CSV
  • for the possible NaN speed value, we should add a new boolean column called has_speed with possible value 0 and 1.
@offtherailz
Copy link
Member Author

@giohappy do you have any advice for handling this new CSV.
Can it be handled from the current back-end without issues? If yes, we don't have to do anything (event for future versions of SMB). If need some changes:

  • Should we do some switch to create different CSV for different profiles(for profile unipi)?
  • Should we improve back-end to support this format

@giohappy
Copy link
Contributor

giohappy commented Dec 16, 2019

@offtherailz the current backend shouldn't complain if we add more fields, but it will fail if we change the current fields order. See here to check how the CSV rows are parsed.

@offtherailz
Copy link
Member Author

sure, so I'll add in the specification that all the new fields should be added at the end.
What about the new NaN value? Do you think this new value can be handled correctly by the back-end?

@giohappy
Copy link
Contributor

NaN shouldn't break it, but a test would be required to verify that nothing down the processing chain breask.
For safety I would create a new field ("speed_or_nan"?)

@offtherailz
Copy link
Member Author

Updated, calling it "real_speed_value"

@giohappy
Copy link
Contributor

let's go for "real_speed" ("value" suffix is redundant

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

3 participants