EPICS Controls Argonne National Laboratory

Experimental Physics and
Industrial Control System

1994  1995  1996  1997  1998  1999  2000  2001  2002  2003  2004  2005  2006  2007  2008  2009  2010  2011  2012  2013  2014  2015  2016  2017  2018  2019  2020  2021  2022  <20232024  Index 1994  1995  1996  1997  1998  1999  2000  2001  2002  2003  2004  2005  2006  2007  2008  2009  2010  2011  2012  2013  2014  2015  2016  2017  2018  2019  2020  2021  2022  <20232024 
<== Date ==> <== Thread ==>

Subject: Re: camonitor vs caput
From: Érico Nogueira Rolim via Tech-talk <tech-talk at aps.anl.gov>
To: Gerrit Kühn <gerrit.kuehn at aei.mpg.de>, "tech-talk at aps.anl.gov" <tech-talk at aps.anl.gov>
Date: Tue, 5 Dec 2023 15:26:16 +0000
On 05/12/2023 04:43, Gerrit Kühn via Tech-talk wrote:
> Am Tue, 5 Dec 2023 08:20:05 +0100
> schrieb Gerrit Kühn via Tech-talk <tech-talk at aps.anl.gov>:
>
>> As this works fine with all other records, it looks to me like the
>> scanning field (I/O Intr), maybe in combination with StreamDevice, is
>> causing my trouble here. Is this expected behaviour? How can I achieve
>> that caput changes are recognised by camonitor on I/O Intr records?
> I worked around this by creating an extra dummy record with I/O Intr
> scanning and using redirection for all other channels containing the
> actual data. This gets me the desired behaviour, but I still wonder why
> I/O Intr records behave so differently.


 From [1]:


 > Passive records are processed when they are referenced by other
records through their link fields or when a channel access put is done
to them.


A record must be Passive in order to be *processed* (therefore sending
an event to your camonitor process) when it receives a value write.


I believe a possible workaround would be an auxiliary record(s), first
writing the value and then writing to "$record.PROC CA". I know that
works to force processing for records with periodic scanning, but don't
remember testing with I/O Intr.


[1]
https://docs.epics-controls.org/en/latest/process-database/EPICS_Process_Database_Concepts.html#passive-scanning


Cheers,

Érico


>
>
> cu
>    Gerrit



Aviso Legal: Esta mensagem e seus anexos podem conter informações confidenciais e/ou de uso restrito. Observe atentamente seu conteúdo e considere eventual consulta ao remetente antes de copiá-la, divulgá-la ou distribuí-la. Se você recebeu esta mensagem por engano, por favor avise o remetente e apague-a imediatamente.

Disclaimer: This email and its attachments may contain confidential and/or privileged information. Observe its content carefully and consider possible querying to the sender before copying, disclosing or distributing it. If you have received this email by mistake, please notify the sender and delete it immediately.

Replies:
Re: camonitor vs caput Gerrit Kühn via Tech-talk
References:
camonitor vs caput Gerrit Kühn via Tech-talk
Re: camonitor vs caput Gerrit Kühn via Tech-talk

Navigate by Date:
Prev: Re: camonitor vs caput Gerrit Kühn via Tech-talk
Next: Re: camonitor vs caput Gerrit Kühn via Tech-talk
Index: 1994  1995  1996  1997  1998  1999  2000  2001  2002  2003  2004  2005  2006  2007  2008  2009  2010  2011  2012  2013  2014  2015  2016  2017  2018  2019  2020  2021  2022  <20232024 
Navigate by Thread:
Prev: Re: camonitor vs caput Gerrit Kühn via Tech-talk
Next: Re: camonitor vs caput Gerrit Kühn via Tech-talk
Index: 1994  1995  1996  1997  1998  1999  2000  2001  2002  2003  2004  2005  2006  2007  2008  2009  2010  2011  2012  2013  2014  2015  2016  2017  2018  2019  2020  2021  2022  <20232024 
ANJ, 05 Dec 2023 Valid HTML 4.01! · Home · News · About · Base · Modules · Extensions · Distributions · Download ·
· Search · EPICS V4 · IRMIS · Talk · Bugs · Documents · Links · Licensing ·