Update RTKLib to 2.4.3 b34 to resolve time synchronization issues #27
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
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
1 participant
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Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.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.
Dear Dr. Wen,
Thank you for your excellent work on GraphGNSSLib - it's been a pleasure building upon your contributions for GNSS positioning research.
I recently encountered an issue when using self-collected datasets: after reading base station data files, there were skipped/repeated timestamps in the published topics (example attached). However, this behavior did not occur with my local RTKLIB v2.4.3 b34 implementation.
After updating the embedded RTKLIB in GraphGNSSLib to v2.4.3 b34 and retesting, the timestamp inconsistencies were resolved.
This PR:
✅ Updates RTKLIB submodule to v2.4.3 b34
✅ Maintains existing functionality while fixing synchronization issues
✅ Includes regression tests demonstrating the improvement
Would you consider merging this update? If there are concerns about compatibility or other factors, I'd be happy to discuss alternatives.
Thank you for your consideration!
Best regards