-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 8
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
Make useful scripts into a dodal utility #732
Comments
@DominicOram what do you think? |
I think it needs wider discussion with controls about what they see the future of PV discover-ability being.
I think trying to put it in |
@marcelldls , @coretl what do you think? since we already have device detection in OTOH maybe this is a non-issue, obsolesced by argocd? still argocd only is set to go to 3 beamlines by the dark period, so there would be a stream of value from having the support for the existing non-containerized IOCs too |
I see no reason to touch |
if I remember right, last time I spoke with @gilesknap this was years away, that at the moment we're less than 1/3rd through |
Yes, and we have |
I see a script in dodal that is more powerful than that - performs the lookup of the various files too. Maybe I just make a quick PR to make the discussion more concrete |
as discussed with @coretl , deferred in favour of ChannelFinder exploration https://github.com/ChannelFinder/ChannelFinderService/ |
python2 /dls_sw/work/useful-scripts/find-pv.py BL20I-EA-DET-06:ERASE
/dls_sw/work/R3.14.12.7/support/BL20I-BUILDER/iocs/BL20I-EA-IOC-05/db/BL20I-EA-IOC-05_expanded.db
as abo
record.bo
records take values of 0 or 1, but they can defineZNAM
andONAM
which are user friendly names for the 0/1 statesWe can see that both are blank compared to a PV of the same type I found elsewhere:
blank
this is why your string enum complains if they're anything else. Obviously this won't actually work in production as if you setblank
on the PV how does it know which one you actually need?So, we have some choices:
int
- This will work but is a bit of a shame as it's not super clear that writing 1 to the erase is what you want to doIntEnum
e.g.But are you saying that didn't work? In which case we should probably open a discussion up about if this is a bug in
ophyd_async
I prefer option 1 but it will be the most work. I can live with option 2 for now in the interests of just getting things done, maybe we can then put in a ticket with controls to improve it at a later date
Originally posted by @DominicOram in #524 (comment)
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: