The sequence was a standard QSO.
When I sent the 73 I logged the QSO immediately.
He sent another RRR and the autosequence chose TX 3 to respond. I had not
moved to another QSO...was still on him.It appears to be caused by the reset of
m_QSOProgress here:
bool b=(m_mode=="FT8") and ui->cbAutoSeq->isChecked(); if(is_73 and
(m_config.disable_TX_on_73() or b)) { if(m_nextCall!="") {
useNextCall(); } else { auto_tx_mode (false); if(b) {
m_ntx=6; ui->txrb6->setChecked(true); m_QSOProgress =
CALLING; } } }
Here's the patch that relaxes the sequencing and allows clicking such late
messages and pick the correct response.This was against the 1.9 version -- the
first section allow double-click and old QSO when they repeat after you've
moved to another QSO. The 2nd relaxes the sequencing requirement and appears
to work just fine...been running it for weeks.
@@ -4215,11 +4217,12 @@
{
if (message_words.size () > 3 // enough fields for a normal message
&& (message_words.at (1).contains (m_baseCall) || "DE" ==
message_words.at (1))
- && message_words.at (2).contains (qso_partner_base_call)
+ //&& message_words.at (2).contains (qso_partner_base_call)
&& !message_words.at (3).contains (grid_regexp)) // but no grid on
end of msg
{
QString r=message_words.at (3);
- if(m_QSOProgress >= ROGER_REPORT && (r=="RRR" || r.toInt()==73 ||
"RR73" == r)) {
+ //if(m_QSOProgress >= ROGER_REPORT && (r=="RRR" || r.toInt()==73 ||
"RR73" == r)) {
+ if(r=="RRR" || r.toInt()==73 || "RR73" == r) {
if(ui->tabWidget->currentIndex()==1) {
gen_msg = 5;
if (ui->rbGenMsg->isChecked ()) m_ntx=7;
On Thursday, October 18, 2018, 8:16:46 AM CDT, Joe Taylor
<[email protected]> wrote:
Mike --
On 10/17/2018 5:22 PM, Black Michael via wsjt-devel wrote:
> Was working a QSO...logged him during the 73 being sent from me.
> He came back with another RRR and the autosequence then sent R+00
> instead of 73. Had to turn off autoseq to finish the QSO.
>
> This is another example of why we need to relax the sequencing with the
> patch I provided before.
Unfortunately, I can't make sense of your message. Please explain
exactly what sequence of messages took place, and what is the "patch you
provided before". When? Against what source code?
-- Joe, K1JT
_______________________________________________
wsjt-devel mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/wsjt-devel
_______________________________________________
wsjt-devel mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/wsjt-devel
