ArduPilot EU Dev Call 2026-04-01

Attendees (unique): 10

UTC0702

DFU issue

Andy: If you reinstate the hook, use new bootloader and old firmware, it works.

  • But not with old firmware.
  • Not sure why yet. It doesn’t seem to detect the USB.
  • Testing in Cube Orange, Pixhawk 6X, TBS Lucid.

UTC0707

(Peter presents his PR. Randy goes over it and comments.)

Approved!


UTC0735

Peter: Rob Long helped fix the scripting mount backend.

Approved!


UTC0740

Matt: The logs are too big, due to logging EKF. There’s no point in doing that, and fast rate isn’t on by default anyways.
Andrew: The maximum update rate of the EKF is 100Hz. But if we disable full rate logging here, is there a way to get back full EKF rate, instead of 25Hz?

Approved!


UTC0749

P: If the 6C board is a standard implementation, is it OK to modify it with this new IMU?
A: I don’t think it’s going to be a problem.

  • The PR in an existing 6C works.

Merged!


UTC0803

A: I had reservations when this change goes into an autopilot with a GPS. But Paul mentions that it probably applies to non-GPS situations.
Andy: My intention is for this to be used for indoors, without GPS.
A: Okay. The condition to get onGrOundNotMoving=True you look only at your IMU. But on a ship, you can be steady (non accelerating), but you might be moving steadily and laterally fast. Then you would fuse zero velocity, which is wrong, while GPS would give you correct velocity.

  • But Paul says this check was meant to apply only on absense of GPS, so we might be okay.

Andy: Thanks, I’ll double-check.


UTC0814

  • Do we not like pre-commits in general?

Peter: Not necessarily, some people use them, not necessarily as hooks.

  • If we remove flake8 in favour of ruff, it could become much faster, so it would work nicely even on interactive rebases.
  • Ruff should be equivalent to flake8.

P: Are we vulnerable to supply-chain attacks?
George: Do you have a specific part of our repos in mind?
P: CI suite and our tooling, pulling repos from the internet to do its work.
A: Pinning down versions is going to be a pain to maintain
C: We can be running things on virtual environments.
P: We should give this a little thought, especially how to trust newer versions of packges.


UTC0829

Merged!


UTC0834

P: This is to protect ourselves against fields we do not recognize, where we would serve them, but serve them wrong from the point of view of the sender.
A: It is more of a responsibility of the sender to not adopt breaking changes in the MAVLink standard.
P: We could version the MAVLink command set itself. But the GCS would have to handle all those multiple versions simultaneously.
G: We could add an extension field in messages, which carries version information for this specific message? Then the autopilot could read that and decide if it can support it.

  • Another thing: we wouldn’t want to halt and not route custom/breaking commands that are not intended for the autopilot but for some custom MAVLink payload.