-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 318
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
Remove Location filter and check Location#getAccuracy #1157
Conversation
fd5c750
to
b9e36b7
Compare
I test this update in real life and with simulator. It works fine and solve my problem. |
Hi @danesfeder We're currently implementing a pilot based on this SDK. I personally investigated in the old source before your recent commit, and I've found it well thought, the only line which I doubt was: That would mean, as long as there was enough time between updates the current location update would be valid regardless of the value of accuracyAcceptable. Can you explain why you're doing such a radical change to LocationValidator.java with you recent commit, because all of what was well thought before would be gone. Thank you, |
this.locationAccuracyPercentThreshold = locationAccuracyPercentThreshold; | ||
this.locationUpdateTimeInMillisThreshold = locationUpdateTimeInMillisThreshold; | ||
this.locationVelocityInMetersPerSecondThreshold = locationVelocityInMetersPerSecondThreshold; | ||
public LocationValidator(int accuracyThreshold) { |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Are we ok here breaking SemVer?
If so, we should document this in the release notes.
@@ -51,12 +51,6 @@ | |||
|
|||
public abstract int locationAcceptableAccuracyInMetersThreshold(); | |||
|
|||
public abstract int locationAccuracyPercentThreshold(); |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Are we ok here breaking SemVer?
If so, we should document this in the release notes.
@mclucky we were noticing some problems with this logic and opted to remove it. The first problem was the "percent threshold" rule for accuracy. This logic could potentially allow the The second problem was using the We could potentially "band-aid" these issues, but we are going to remove the logic for now in favor of simple filter - and then will revisit with a more robust implementation. Thanks for your understanding! |
b9e36b7
to
04b554b
Compare
04b554b
to
5fb7c6d
Compare
@danesfeder thank you for that in deep explanation, we understand! |
Hey @mclucky 👋
|
Thank you for further explaining. But however, we'll test your latest changes and we'll give you feedback!! |
Yeah, not a problem anymore because we check against Line 16 in 9b40259
MapboxNavigationOptions#locationAcceptableAccuracyInMetersThreshold Line 95 in 9b40259
Line 197 in 9b40259
|
We are seeing issues with what I think to have tracked down is the velocity check in the
LocationValidator
. I think it's best to roll back the filtering here in favor of the less aggressive filter we had prior.Capturing some discussion with @Guardiola31337, this filter is not ideal as it can "build up" to eventually be accepting poor updates. We should continue to look into filtering out erroneous data for situations like urban canyons and such.
TODO:
MapboxNavigationOptions
(default100
)