mc_att_control_main: fix check for hover thrust estimate update #24750
Conversation
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
2 tasks
dakejahl
approved these changes
Apr 22, 2025
Louis-max-H
pushed a commit
to Louis-max-H/PX4-Autopilot
that referenced
this pull request
Jun 6, 2025
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
Solved Problem
When working on #24710 together with @dawr68 I added some suggestions and admittedly did this mistake which was apparently not found in review. It doesn't blow things up because the vehicle status is also regularly updated but it's of course completely wrong and hence worth a separate pr to fix.
See https://github.com/PX4/PX4-Autopilot/pull/24710/files#r2054448109
Solution
Updating the hover thrust estimate should be dependent on the correct topic's update.
Test coverage
I just found this while following up on reducing the parameter options like we discussed in the dev call. So it's purely based on reading the code again.