search

Equipment-and-Tool-Institute / j1939-84

J1939-84 implementation for etools.org
MIT License
7 stars 6 forks source link

FFh interpreted as greater than zero for all pending count #1252

Closed ericthomasswenson closed 1 month ago

ericthomasswenson commented 1 year ago

FFh interpreted as greater than zero for all pending count

Start Test 3.4 - DM29: Regulated DTC counts 13:10:47.7949 Global DM29 Request 13:10:47.7969 18EAFFF9 [3] 00 9E 00 (TX) 13:10:47.8039 189EFF3D [8] 01 FF 00 00 00 FF FF FF DM29 from Exhaust Emission Controller (61): Emission-Related Pending DTC Count 1 All Pending DTC Count not available Emission-Related MIL-On DTC Count 0 Emission-Related Previously MIL-On DTC Count 0 Emission-Related Permanent DTC Count 0

13:10:47.8099 189EFF01 [8] 01 FF 00 00 00 FF FF FF DM29 from Engine #2 (1): Emission-Related Pending DTC Count 1 All Pending DTC Count not available Emission-Related MIL-On DTC Count 0 Emission-Related Previously MIL-On DTC Count 0 Emission-Related Permanent DTC Count 0

WARN: 6.3.4.3.a - Engine #2 (1) reported > 1 for all pending DTC count WARN: 6.3.4.3.a - Exhaust Emission Controller (61) reported > 1 for all pending DTC count WARN: 6.3.4.3.b - More than one ECU reported > 0 for pending DTC count WARN: 6.3.4.3.b - More than one ECU reported > 0 for all pending DTC count

ericthomasswenson commented 1 year ago

Also no ecu reported an all pending count.

battjt commented 11 months ago

Is there action to take concerning this?

Also no ecu reported an all pending count.

battjt commented 11 months ago

6.1.22.2.a,b (and 6.2.12.2.a,b) reference the value '0', but 6.1.22.2.c says "greater than 0'. 0xFF is not "greater than zero". In this case should it be "not zero"?

6.1.22.2.c. For non-OBD ECUs, fail if any ECU reports pending, MIL-on, previously MIL-on or permanent DTC count greater than 0

[EDIT:] The artifact (and resulting implementation) is correct because:

All Pending (DM27) is not required to be supported in the regulation. (DM6, DM12, DM23, DM28 are required)