Hi Colin,
On Aug 7, 2017, at 3:32 PM, Hogben, Colin H <[email protected]> wrote:
> On 07/08/17 14:22, Mark Rivers wrote:
>> However, the HIGH field does not have Rec Proc Monitor, so writing to the HIGH field does not cause monitor events to be posted. So your original camonitor program does not get an event. However, if you run camonitor again it connects to the channel and does get the new timestamp and status.
>
> Well, I do get an update for the monitoring of the HIGH field, but the status/severity passed in the update are the previous state - I'm guessing the update of HIGH is sent out before the record gets processed.
Correct, IIRC as long as the field isn't the VAL field the monitor update gets posted before the record's process() routine is called as a result of the PP flag on the field's definition.
> My aim of my bridge is: given an arbitrary PV name, monitor the PV to obtain its value and/or an indication as to whether the value is invalid or unavailable. Based on my experiments and what you guys have said, my current understanding is thus:
>
> * If the PV represents the VAL field. then the status & severity in updates may be used; in effect, this is effectively a short-cut to getting the VAL, STAT and SEVR fields at the same time.
>
> * If the PV represents any other field, the status and severity in an update are meaningless noise and should be disregarded.
>
> Is that a reasonable approximation?
Yes. You could also use the presence of a '.' in the PV name to switch behaviors since .VAL is the default field if none is specified. Note that IOC PVs are likely to behave differently from those from other kinds of servers (CAS-based), and these rules only apply to IOCs.
You should probably only subscribe to non-VAL fields using the basic DBR_DOUBLE etc. data types, not the ones with the extra metadata (DBR_TIME_DOUBLE etc.) so you won't see the potentially invalid information.
- Andrew
--
Sent from my iPad
- Replies:
- Re: CA monitoring weirdness for status/severity Hogben, Colin H
- References:
- CA monitoring weirdness for status/severity Hogben, Colin H
- Re: CA monitoring weirdness for status/severity Johnson, Andrew N.
- Re: CA monitoring weirdness for status/severity Hogben, Colin H
- RE: CA monitoring weirdness for status/severity Mark Rivers
- Re: CA monitoring weirdness for status/severity Hogben, Colin H
- Navigate by Date:
- Prev:
Re: CA monitoring weirdness for status/severity Hogben, Colin H
- Next:
Re: Debian packages for debian 9 (stretch) ? Bo Jakobsen
- 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
- Navigate by Thread:
- Prev:
Re: 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
<2017>
2018
2019
2020
2021
2022
2023
2024
|