| 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 2023 2024 2025 | 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 2023 2024 2025 |
| <== Date ==> | <== Thread ==> |
|---|
| Subject: | Re: NaN and analog records |
| From: | Ralph Lange <[email protected]> |
| To: | EPICS Tech-Talk <[email protected]> |
| Date: | Tue, 04 Nov 2014 14:24:58 +0100 |
On 04/11/2014 11:21, Benjamin Franksen wrote:
how do you handle a client writing NaN to an analog record (which probably happens by accident)? My intuition tells me that the proper response for the record is to go into an INVALID status, but apparently this is not what happens by default...
Hm...I would say, analog records are numerical, so setting it to not-a-number should make the record undefined, setting the severity to INVALID (3.14) or UDFS (3.15).
Would that match your idea?Driving the record output could then configured in the regular way, using IVOA/IVOV.
What do you think? Would that resolve yours and Götz' concerns? Cheers, ~Ralph