I have been writing simulators but they do not have the nuances that the rigs do. There's all sorts of oddities.
But....the plan is to eventually incorporate those simulators in the "make test" in Hamlib that should catch big mistakes. It's on my to-do list but don't hold your breath...it's a low priority. Mike W9MDB On Saturday, May 13, 2023 at 03:29:25 AM CDT, Tom M0LTE via wsjt-devel <wsjt-devel@lists.sourceforge.net> wrote: Hey Uwe While manual testing could probably never be eliminated in the case of hamlib, has there been any consideration of creating test harnesses to remove/reduce the need for manual testing? It strikes me that there could be potential to capture test cases from manual testing with real rigs, then at least there would be regression tests. Future bug fixes could have test cases added to prevent further regression, again without requiring physical radios and manual testing. Apologies if I am not the first to ask this question. Kind regards Tom M0LTE On Sat, 13 May 2023 at 08:11, Uwe, DG2YCB via wsjt-devel <wsjt-devel@lists.sourceforge.net> wrote: > > Dear WSJT-X users, > > Please allow me to summarize again here on this email reflector a topic that > is very important to me and to all of us. My original post was on > https://groups.io/g/wsjtgroup, so maybe it's best if you join the discussion > there. > > Despite great personal commitment of the hamlib developers it has > unfortunately happened very often that immediately after a new WSJT-X release > serious problems with one or another hamlib rig driver become apparent. If > something like this happens over and over again, it shows that there is a > systematic error somewhere. In my opinion this is due to the fact that too > few users try the current development versions of hamlib, so that errors are > detected too late. Keep in mind that hamlib drivers often change as they > evolve. > > So I would like to ask you all that enough OMs act as hamlib bata tester in > the future. For those who own one of the rigs below and work on Windows, just > do the following every 2, 3 or 4 weeks: > > 1. Download the daily updated libhamlib-4.dll file available on > https://n0nb.users.sourceforge.net/dll64/libhamlib-4.dll. > 2. Copy the file to the bin folder of your WSJT-X installation (i.e. > usually c:\WSJT\wsjtx\bin). Rename the existing libhamlib-4.dll file > beforehand so you can use it again later. > 3. Start WSJT-X (or the respective variant), connect your rig via hamlib > (i.e. not via OmniRig, HRD, DXLabSuite, etc.) and check if the CAT control > runs properly. > 4. If anything is not working properly, please contact Mike W9MDB via > direct email, so he or his team can fix the bug in time. > 5. If everything works fine, keep the new libhamlib-4.dll file, otherwise > delete it and rename the previously used one. > 6. In the future I would like to contact you before a new WSJT-X or > wsjt-x_improved release to be able to choose a bug free hamlib version. > In my opinion, at least the following rigs need to be tested regularly > regarding hamlib: > > * Yaesu: FT-991, FT-101, FT-847 > * Kenwood: which models? > * Icom: IC-7300, IC-9100, IC-9700, IC-705 > * Elecraft: KX3, what else? > * FlexRadio: which models? > * Anything else? > Now, the most important thing is that one of you organizes it. I can't do it > myself because of time constraints, and Mike W9MDB is also overloaded with > work. > > For example, what about the people who have stood out so intensively in the > last few days with posts about something trivial? Wouldn't one of you like to > take over and invest your energy there? Seriously: Who? You are now requested! > > I mean, what needs to be done is evident: > > 1. Create a list of commonly used rig models. > 2. Find beta testers for each of these models and assign responsibilities. > > 3. Get an overview of the status quo and summarize the results clearly. > > Something like this can be done e.g. with a simple Excel file: > > > > > It's sad enough that obviously, the hamlib development team can't do > something so essential themselves. But this definitely has to come now, > because we can't get the next frustration after every new WSJT-X release. > Makes no sense! > > So, again: Who of you will take this in hand and organize such a systematic > beta testing? > > I do not want to see one more "stupid" post as long as this problem is not > solved, hi, hi! > > 73 de Uwe, DG2YCB > _______________________________________________ > wsjt-devel mailing list > wsjt-devel@lists.sourceforge.net > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/wsjt-devel > _______________________________________________ wsjt-devel mailing list wsjt-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/wsjt-devel _______________________________________________ wsjt-devel mailing list wsjt-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/wsjt-devel
