Who is here? 1 guest(s)
 Print Thread
Maintainers of aArtisan_PID FW?
is this FW still actively maintained by anyone? I found the greencardigan GitHub repo but I am wondering if that's still active.

I am asking this because, when I started playing with the FW, I found some build issue and bugs, so I started a fork to fix those (https://github.co...v/croaster).

But I'd also be happy to co-maintain the aArtisan_PID project or contribute to it if that's still active.
You can share your finding with me too, there is a fork in progress where I am working with grencardigan for a new version intended to unify the actual 6.7 with my work into a new multi-platform version extending compatibility to ESP8266 platform.

Curious what bugs you found, I am running for some months TC4 sketch on ESP8266 without a major code change. Could be rather related to memory shortage on Arduino perhaps...
That repository is still maintained, yes. Greencardigan is an active member here, too! ;) There's also a thread about the firmware: https://forum.homeroasters.org/forum/viewthread.php?thread_id=3322
It's not bug in the sense that I observed a bug-like behaviour. It's about things like:
Download source  Code

 if( levelOT1 < MIN_OT1 & levelOT1 != 0 )

We it probably meant && instead of &.
Yep, in this context not led to malfunction, bitwise AND between two booleans is same as logical AND.
But could easily become a bug if adding more to the expression...
Me too I am producing such stupid things... using = instead == or viceversa Grin excessive copy-paste Grin
Other languages are more forgiving with such syntax issues.
Hi yes I currently maintain the aArtisanQ_PID firmware.

I essentially inherited it after JimG stopped working on it. It was on the Google Code site and when that closed I managed to relocate it to github. aArtisanQ_PID was my fork of aArtisan that has become the 'default' sketch.

I'm happy for others to contribute to the repository. I don't have much time lately to do much. Send me a PM if you're interested.

Either way I'll have a look at your fork for the big fixes you've already made.

marcov wrote:
We it probably meant && instead of &.

Shock Whoops. That was likely me. I am definitely not a proficient coder, although I know enough to work things out usually.
Edited by greencardigan on 03/10/2019 5:27 PM
Nope, actually using & and not && is right, the difference is subtle and changing to && will break the code.

Will continue by PM, not sure if it's the right place here to derail into a programming course.

I am pretty sure that TC4 code, was been already in service lots of years*users, to be enough clean... never heard complaints on this subject from others who contributed.
What about thinking to other more roasting specific primary goal, that add truly valuable features, instead "refactor and clean up", that actually break the code due to insuficient understanding of heater level various values, as is in this case that OT1 level not equal to 0, and smaller than MIN_OT1 are different things...
Edited by renatoa on 03/11/2019 7:20 AM
Thanks for the clarification guys.

I agree that this is not the right forum for discussing about programming related topic.

Let's close this discussion then.
Really? But now I’m curious how using && would break the code! Stylistically, the logical operator should be the right choice here though both should produce the same result here.
Jump to Forum: