Skip to content

[nasa/nos3#624] Scenario stf rapid tumbling #691

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

Merged
merged 6 commits into from
May 23, 2025

Conversation

Isgaroth-the-Green
Copy link
Contributor

Nothing really to walk through; to review, just read the document and ensure it both makes sense and is not missing anything.

@codecov-commenter
Copy link

codecov-commenter commented May 13, 2025

Codecov Report

All modified and coverable lines are covered by tests ✅

Project coverage is 73.57%. Comparing base (80725bb) to head (534b23b).
Report is 38 commits behind head on dev.

Additional details and impacted files
@@            Coverage Diff             @@
##              dev     #691      +/-   ##
==========================================
+ Coverage   72.88%   73.57%   +0.69%     
==========================================
  Files         748      757       +9     
  Lines       92138    93094     +956     
  Branches     6976     6983       +7     
==========================================
+ Hits        67157    68498    +1341     
+ Misses      24981    24596     -385     

☔ View full report in Codecov by Sentry.
📢 Have feedback on the report? Share it here.

🚀 New features to boost your workflow:
  • ❄️ Test Analytics: Detect flaky tests, report on failures, and find test suite problems.

@jlucas9 jlucas9 changed the title Nos3#624 scenario stf rapid tumbling [nasa/nos3#624] Scenario stf rapid tumbling May 14, 2025
Copy link
Contributor

@kevincbruce kevincbruce left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Looks good to me unless we actually wanted to show/create the script/situation with rapid tumbling in setup.

@dccutrig
Copy link

Just my thoughts: We show the SIM_CMDBUS RW0 command without calling out what it is doing. Should it call out 'we'll loosely simulate a fault by... ' or something to that effect? Everything that goes through COSMOS seems like a spacecraft command, so it's important to explicitly mention we have a 'backdoor' to break the hardware simulations.

Even if it takes too long for someone to do, it would be good to have some steps such as:

  • This is how we setup the scenario
  • This is how we identify a high angular rate (What is high, relatively speaking? Even if we define it as a mission specific rate)
  • Can we correlate IMU and RW data? (Maybe a RW graph to verify that wonky things are happening)
  • After we send Bdot, how do we verify? What sort of order of magnitude are we talking to watch it stop rotation?

Copy link
Contributor

@msuder msuder left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Read through and executed the scenario. Worked as expected.

Copy link
Contributor

@dacarter22 dacarter22 left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Ran through the steps as described and confirmed sim behavior followed as expected

@Isgaroth-the-Green
Copy link
Contributor Author

Updates made per @dccutrig comments.

@jlucas9 jlucas9 merged commit 40cdc55 into dev May 23, 2025
3 checks passed
@jlucas9 jlucas9 deleted the nos3#624-scenario-stf-rapid-tumbling branch May 28, 2025 12:44
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

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

7 participants