Re: [B.A.T.M.A.N.] Alfred batadv-vis json conformance

[Andrew Lunn <andrew@lunn.ch>]

On Thu, Oct 03, 2013 at 08:09:08AM +0200, Martin Hundebøll wrote:
> On 2013-10-02 18:01, Antonio Quartulli wrote:
> >On Wed, Oct 02, 2013 at 03:05:48PM +0200, Simon Wunderlich wrote:
> >>>> >I'm also wondering if label and gateway could have more meaningful
> >>>> >names? TQ and host? Also, is TT the best?
> >>>
> >>>Hm, that is a good question. We also have the batman v with new metrics
> >>>coming up, I'm not sure how to handle these (maybe Antonio has some
> >>>idea?). It is not the TQ-value in the label after all, but some kind of
> >>>ETX-converted value (255/TQ if i remember correctly).
> >I think the ETX stuff comes from OLSR (but I don't know the details).
> >
> >I agree with Simon that we should find a generic name (e.g. metric ?) but I am
> >not sure we can represent this value in a "algorithm-generic" fashion (and maybe
> >we don't want to).
> 
> May I suggest that the cjson output includes an entry to tell the
> version of the batman-algorithm?
> 
> Users might want to do different map overlays (or whatever)
> depending on the available metric(s).
 
Hi Martin

I did think about that, but i'm not sure how. The cjson format is the
simple bit. I can add an outer layer with more key:value
pairs. Something like this:

batadv-vis -f cjson
{
  "algorithm" : 4,
  "source_version" : "2013.4.0-g6b13699",
  "vis" : [
    { "primary" : "fe:f0:00:00:04:01",
      "neighbors" : [
         { "router" : "fe:f0:00:00:04:01",
           "neighbor" : "fe:f0:00:00:05:01",
           "metric" : "1.000" },
         { "router" : "fe:f0:00:00:04:01",
           "neighbor" : "fe:f0:00:00:03:01",
           "metric" : "1.008" }
      ],
      "clients" : [
         "00:00:43:05:00:04",
         "fe:f1:00:00:04:01"
      ]
    },
...
  ]
}

But how do we determine the algorithm version? For the moment it can
simply be hard coded. But for version 5? Will the over-alfred format
change? Will we have a "struct vis_v2" and VIS_PACKETVERSION_2 for
algorithm 5?

Thanks
	Andrew