Recently (c9b8584bd2) the sort criteria of the device-table
was changed from (model/id) to (id/model). However, that
messed with the detection of duplicate device names: there,
the code searched for the first element greater or equal
to (model / 0).
With the reversal of the sort criteria, this would now
always give the first element.
Therefore, do a simple non-binary search, which is much
more robust. The binary search was a silly and pointless
premature optimization anyway - don't do such things
if not necessary!
Since only one place in the code search for existence
for a model-name, fold the corresponding function into
that place.
Moreover, change the code to do a case-insensitive compare.
This is consistent with the dc_match_serial() code in
core/libdivecomputer.c, where matching models is
case-insensitive!
Signed-off-by: Berthold Stoeger <bstoeger@mail.tuwien.ac.at>
The device table is accessed by core via a callback using
call_for_each_dc(). This sorts the table by device-id. It
is unclear whether this is needed - since currently all it
does is make sure that the devices have a fixed order in XML
and git log files.
In any case, this means that the table had to be copied and
sorted in call_for_each_dc(). Since the frontend now does
its own sorting, we can just keep the core table sorted
as it needs it. This in turn will ultimately make it possible
to replace the callback by a simple loop.
Signed-off-by: Berthold Stoeger <bstoeger@mail.tuwien.ac.at>
We keep track of device, i.e. distinct dive computers with id in the core.
The corresponding code stuck out like a sore thumb. Firstly, because it
is C++. But more importantly, because it used inconsistent nameing conventions.
Notably it defined a "DiveComputerNode" when this is something very different
from "struct dive_computer", the latter being the dive-computer related
data of a single dive.
Since the whole thing is defined in "device.h" and the function to create
such an entry is called "create_device_node", call the structure "device".
Use snake_case for consistency with the other core structures.
Moreover, call the collection of devices "device_table" in analogy
with "dive_table", etc.
Overall, this should make the core code more consistent style-wise.
Signed-off-by: Berthold Stoeger <bstoeger@mail.tuwien.ac.at>
core/device.c used to be a C file, which couldn't access the C++
divecomputer list directly. Therefore, instead of a simple loop,
searching for a matching DC was implemented via a callback with
void * user data parameter. Wild. Since the file is now C++, let's
just use direct access to the C++ data structures to make this
readable by mere humans.
Signed-off-by: Berthold Stoeger <bstoeger@mail.tuwien.ac.at>
These are used to search for device nodes and were passed model
and device id (for the exact version). However, all callers used
them to search for the node corresponding to a specific struct
divecomputer, so let's just pass that instead to make the caller
site less complex.
Signed-off-by: Berthold Stoeger <bstoeger@mail.tuwien.ac.at>
Remove the declaration of helper functions needed only in
core/device.cpp. To this goal, turn the member functions
into free functions.
Cosmetics: turn the DiveComputer[Node|List] "class"es into
"struct"s, since all members were public anyway.
Signed-off-by: Berthold Stoeger <bstoeger@mail.tuwien.ac.at>
getDiveSelection() returns a vector of the selected dives.
Use that instead of looping over the dive table and checking
manually.
This removes a few lines of code.
Signed-off-by: Berthold Stoeger <bstoeger@mail.tuwien.ac.at>
core/device.h was declaring a number of functions that were related
to divecomputers (dcs): creating a fake dc for manually entered dives
and registering / accessing dc nicknames. On could argue whether
these should be lumped together, but it is what it is.
However, part of that was implemented in C++/Qt code in a separate
core/divecomputer.cpp file. Some function therein where only
accessible to C++ and declared in core/divecomputer.h.
All in all, a big mess. Let's simply combine the files and
conditionally compile the C++-only functions depending on
the __cplusplus define.
Yes, that means turning device.c into device.cpp. A brave soul
might turn the C++/Qt code into C code if they whish later on.
Signed-off-by: Berthold Stoeger <bstoeger@mail.tuwien.ac.at>
