We really have two different cases for merging dives:
(a) downloading a new dive from a dive computer, and merging it with an
existing dive that we had already created using a different dive
computer. This is the "try_to_merge()" case, called from
"process_dives()
(b) merging two different dives into one longer dive. This is the
"merge_two_dives()" case when you explicitly merge dives using the
divelist.
While a lot of the issues are the same, many details differ, and one of
the details is how dive numbering should be handled.
In particular, when you download from a dive computer and merge with an
existing dive, you want too take the *maximum* dive number, because the
dive computer notion of which dive it is may well not match what the
user dive number is.
On the other hand, when you explicitly merge in the dive list, you end
up renumbering not just the dive you are merging, but also all
subsequent dives, since you now have one fewer dives overall. So that
case already has to be handled by the caller.
Now, the simpler "download from dive computer" case was broken by commit
ce3a78efca ("Assign lower number to a merged dive instead of higher
one"). It fixed the numbering for the divelist case, but broke the
download case.
So this commit reverts commit ce3a78efca, and instead extends and
clarifies the dive renumbering that "merge_two_dives()" already did. It
now explicitly renumbers not just the following dives, but also
renumbers the merged dive itself, so now we can go back to the old "take
the bigger dive number" for the core merging, which fixes the download
case.
Signed-off-by: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>
Signed-off-by: Dirk Hohndel <dirk@hohndel.org>
The old expression wass correct because if dive_table.dives[j]->number is != 0,
then !dive_table.dives[j]->number is 0 and vice versa. But come on...
The new code seems much more natural and easier to read.
And of course the Apple compilers by default gave a warning because they
suspected a precedence bug with the old code.
Signed-off-by: Dirk Hohndel <dirk@hohndel.org>
Otherwise parse_file() thinks that this data has already been loaded and
doesn't re-read it, even though our internal data structures have been
erased - so a subsequent parse_file after clear_dive_file_data() that
opens the same git repository finishes successfully, but leaves the
dive_table empty which is of course incorrect.
Signed-off-by: Dirk Hohndel <dirk@hohndel.org>
The dive list might contain dives in the future, don't add the new dive to
then end but instead add it at the correct spot in the list
Signed-off-by: Dirk Hohndel <dirk@hohndel.org>
As Linus pointed out in mail list, user is forced to manually renumber
his dives after doing a merge, unless the merged dives were those at
the list tail.
This patch try to manage the more usual cases, letting the user to deal
with those more complex, based on some assumptions:
1.- We are working on an time ordered list of type:
dive_table.nr ... 100 -- 101 -- 102 -- 103 -- 104 ...
dive_table.dives.number ... 234 -- 235 -- 236 -- 245 -- 246 ...
2.- It's unlikely to merge no consecutive dives, as merging is time
based.
3.- It's unlikely (although possible) to find consecutive dives with
no consecutive numbers.
4.- It would be rather bizarre to find that newer dive,of those to
merge, has lower number than older.
5.- It can be found that one (or both) dives to merge are zero
numbered.
6.- There is only need to renumber from merged dives in advance.
A variable, "factor", is fixed before reworking the dive table. This
number will be substracted from the original dive number.
If we are in point 5.- case, "factor" will be set to zero, meaning
that dive numbers will not change (if older dive is zero, merged one
will be numbered zero too and will let the user to manage this; if
newer dive is zero there won't be need of renumbering as following
dives will be correctly numbered, e.g. after splitting a dive which
is not at the tail of the table).
In most cases, "factor" *should* be set to 1.
While renumbering it can be found a dive with it's number set to zero,
this won't be changed and will remain zeroed to avoid negative
numbers. It, mostly, means that the user has pending work on his
dives.
I don't know why I've written such a big explanation for such a tiny
patch :-)
Signed-off-by: Salvador Cuñat <salvador.cunat@gmail.com>
Signed-off-by: Dirk Hohndel <dirk@hohndel.org>
And adapt a new CMakeLists.txt file for it. On the way I've also
found out that we where double-compilling a few files. I've also
set the subsurface-core as a include_path but that was just to
reduce the noise on this commit, since I plan to remove it from
the include path to make it obligatory to specify something like
include "subsurface-core/dive.h"
for the header files. Since the app is growing quite a bit we ended
up having a few different files with almost same name that did
similar things, I want to kill that (for instance Dive.h, dive.h,
PrintDive.h and such).
Signed-off-by: Tomaz Canabrava <tomaz.canabrava@intel.com>
Signed-off-by: Dirk Hohndel <dirk@hohndel.org>
![](https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/e81491093d5916411bcadfadabe61852?d=identicon&s=56 "K. \\"pestophagous\\" Heller"){kind=small}
