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  <20172018  2019  2020  2021  2022  2023  2024  Index 1994  1995  1996  1997  1998  1999  2000  2001  2002  2003  2004  2005  2006  2007  2008  2009  2010  2011  2012  2013  2014  2015  2016  <20172018  2019  2020  2021  2022  2023  2024 
<== Date ==> <== Thread ==>

Subject: Re: CA monitoring weirdness for status/severity
From: "Johnson, Andrew N." <[email protected]>
To: "Hogben, Colin H" <[email protected]>
Cc: "[email protected]" <[email protected]>
Date: Mon, 7 Aug 2017 10:51:36 +0000
Hi Colin,

On Aug 7, 2017, at 10:58 AM, Hogben, Colin H <[email protected]> wrote:
> First I start softIoc with the following database:
> 
>  record(ao, "chah:ao") {
>    field(HIGH, 10)
>  }
> 
> Next, I monitor the HIGH field:
> 
>  gen-pub-11:~ $ camonitor chah:ao.HIGH
>  chah:ao.HIGH                   <undefined> 10 UDF INVALID
> 
> My first surprise is that the HIGH field is reported as undefined, when it clearly has the value I configured.

There are 3 aspects to the camonitor output, and I think you're getting them confused. The <undefined> part means the record's time stamp is as yet unset, because it hasn't been processed yet. Similarly the UDF INVALID part means the record is still in a UDF alarm state because the VAL field hasn't been set. Note that the time stamp and alarm status and severity are related to the record as a whole, not to the particular field you're monitoring. You are getting the expected value for your field though, 10.

>  But it gets weirder.  I now do a

>  caput chah:ao.HIGH 11
> 
> and the camonitor spits out an update:
> 
>  chah:ao.HIGH                   <undefined> 11 UDF INVALID

The value changes as you expect, but the record still hasn't processed or been given a value to define the VAL field, so it's still undefined and in UDF alarm.

> However, if I start a new camonitor, I get
> 
>  gen-pub-11:~ $ camonitor chah:ao.HIGH
>  chah:ao.HIGH                   2017-08-07 10:30:55.033976 11

Are you sure you didn't also do a put to the VAL field in between? The change to the metadata implies that someone did since they are now set so the record has been processed.

If you're going to be writing your own CA client code, you may not want to actually monitor the metadata for channels which aren't a record's VAL field, and make sure you're monitoring the right CA Event type as well.

HTH,

- Andrew

-- 
Sent from my iPad

Replies:
Re: CA monitoring weirdness for status/severity Hogben, Colin H
RE: CA monitoring weirdness for status/severity Mark Rivers
References:
CA monitoring weirdness for status/severity Hogben, Colin H

Navigate by Date:
Prev: CA monitoring weirdness for status/severity Hogben, Colin H
Next: Re: CA monitoring weirdness for status/severity Hogben, Colin H
Index: 1994  1995  1996  1997  1998  1999  2000  2001  2002  2003  2004  2005  2006  2007  2008  2009  2010  2011  2012  2013  2014  2015  2016  <20172018  2019  2020  2021  2022  2023  2024 
Navigate by Thread:
Prev: CA monitoring weirdness for status/severity Hogben, Colin H
Next: Re: CA monitoring weirdness for status/severity Hogben, Colin H
Index: 1994  1995  1996  1997  1998  1999  2000  2001  2002  2003  2004  2005  2006  2007  2008  2009  2010  2011  2012  2013  2014  2015  2016  <20172018  2019  2020  2021  2022  2023  2024 
ANJ, 21 Dec 2017 Valid HTML 4.01! · Home · News · About · Base · Modules · Extensions · Distributions · Download ·
· Search · EPICS V4 · IRMIS · Talk · Bugs · Documents · Links · Licensing ·