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> 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 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 <2022> 2023 2024
<== Date ==>		<== Thread ==>

Subject:	Re: Implementing transform field
From:	"Mooney, Tim M. via Tech-talk" <tech-talk at aps.anl.gov>
To:	"Marco A. Barra Montevechi Filho" <marco.filho at lnls.br>, "tech-talk at aps.anl.gov" <tech-talk at aps.anl.gov>
Date:	Thu, 4 Aug 2022 16:29:32 +0000

I don't know what's wrong, but 2&2 does not equal 1; it equals 2. When I try these expressions in one of my transform records, I get what I think are correct answers for a bitwise AND function.

Tim Mooney (mooney at anl.gov) (630)252-5417
Beamline Controls Group (www.aps.anl.gov)
Advanced Photon Source, Argonne National Lab

From: Marco A. Barra Montevechi Filho <marco.filho at lnls.br>
Sent: Thursday, August 4, 2022 10:58 AM
To: Mooney, Tim M. <mooney at anl.gov>; tech-talk at aps.anl.gov <tech-talk at aps.anl.gov>
Subject: Re: Implementing transform field

Wait, i think im still having difficulties with the transform record:

i have a record defined as:

record(transform, 
"${BL}:${H}:${EQ}:StatusSeparator"){    field(DESC,
"PV to process status bitmask")
    field(COPT,
"Always")
    field(SCAN,
"1 second")
    field(INPA,
"${BL}:${H}:${EQ}:StatusBitmask")
    field(CLCA,
"A&1")
    field(OUTA,
"${BL}:${H}:${EQ}:EnableStatus")
 }

And it behaves as expected: dbpf StatusBitmask 1 makes StatusSeparator.A field go to 1. Any other value in StatusBitmask that i tried makes StatusSeparator go to 0.

Now if i add field(CLCB, "A&1") to the record, dbpf StatusBitmask 1 makes both StatusSeparator.A and StatusSeparator.B go to 1. Ok, makes sense.

Now if i change CLCB to "A&2", then dbpf StatusBitmask 1 makes dbgf StatusSeparator.A return 1 and dbgf StatusSeparator.B return 0. Makes sense: bitwise AND between 1 and 2 is 0.

The curious thing now: dbpf StatusBitmask 2 makes dbgf StatusSeparator.A return 0 (makes sense: 1&2=0) and dbgf StatusSeparator.B return 0. This doesnt make sense to me since 2&2=2.

Am i doing something wrong?

Yet weirder: if i comment out CLCB field and leave the record exactely as in the begginning, but now change CLCA to "A&2", now dbpf StatusBitmask 1 makes dbgf StatusSeparator.A return 0 and dbpf StatusBitmask 2 makes dbgf StatusSeparator.A return 1. So CLCX ="A&2" works well for X=A but not for X=B? Why?

Thanks in advance.

From: Marco A. Barra Montevechi Filho <marco.filho at lnls.br>
Sent: 04 August 2022 11:39
To: Mooney, Tim M. <mooney at anl.gov>; tech-talk at aps.anl.gov <tech-talk at aps.anl.gov>
Subject: Re: Implementing transform field

Thanks, Tim! Thats exactly what was missing, the record works as expected now.

Apparently i was looking at another documentation page which does not have the COPT field specification: https://epics.anl.gov/bcda/synApps/calc/R2-4/transformRecord.html

This page has it: https://epics.anl.gov/bcda/synApps/calc/transformRecord.html

Best regards,

Marco

Transform Record and related software - EPICS

Versions earlier than 5.8 did not have the COPT field. Release notes Versions earlier than 5.7 did not post fields with the DBE_LOG attribute. Versions earlier than 5.6 expected sCalcPostfix to allocate the postfix-_expression_ array. sCalcPostfix no longer does this, and the transform record changed as a consequence.

epics.anl.gov

From: Mooney, Tim M. <mooney at anl.gov>
Sent: 04 August 2022 11:29
To: tech-talk at aps.anl.gov <tech-talk at aps.anl.gov>; Marco A. Barra Montevechi Filho <marco.filho at lnls.br>
Subject: Re: Implementing transform field

Hi Marco,

I think you need to look at the transform record's COPT field. To serve the original purpose of the record, CLCA is not performed if A has changed since the last time the record was processed. The non-default behavior you want requires that you set COPT to "Always"

Tim Mooney (mooney at anl.gov) (630)252-5417
Beamline Controls Group (www.aps.anl.gov)
Advanced Photon Source, Argonne National Lab

From: Tech-talk <tech-talk-bounces at aps.anl.gov> on behalf of Marco A. Barra Montevechi Filho via Tech-talk <tech-talk at aps.anl.gov>
Sent: Thursday, August 4, 2022 9:19 AM
To: tech-talk at aps.anl.gov <tech-talk at aps.anl.gov>
Subject: Implementing transform field

Good morning, all!
Im trying to implement the transform field in an IOC but im not getting the expected result:

i have an analog in record reading a bitmask value from a modbus register. Since the bitmask has 16 bits, i want to perform 16 bitwise operations to transform each bit in a binary in record thus transforming each 0 or 1 into a different string.

Since i dont want to need to create 16 calcout records, i thought i could use the transform record to perform all bitwise operations and push each one of them into a different binary in record. So after reading the documentation i tried to perform a calculation with transform just for testing:

record(ai,
"${BL}:${H}:${EQ}:BitmaskGetter")
{

    field(DESC,
"Bitmask used by other pvs.")
    field(DTYP,"asynInt32")
    field(INP,"@asyn(SIP_EMODBUS_1_1_Rd_Status,0,1000)MODBUS_DATA")
    field(SCAN, "I/O Intr")
    field(FLNK,
"${BL}:${H}:${EQ}:StatusSeparator")
}

record(transform, 
"${BL}:${H}:${EQ}:StatusSeparator"){

    field(DESC,
"PV to process status bitmask")
    field(INPA,
"${BL}:${H}:${EQ}:StatusBitmask")
    field(CLCA,
"A+1")
    field(OUTA,
"${BL}:${H}:${EQ}:EnableStatus")
    field(SCAN,
"Passive")
}

record(bi,
"${BL}:${H}:${EQ}:EnableStatus"){    field(DESC,
"Power supply status")
    field(ZNAM,
"Stopped")
    field(ONAM,
"Started")

}

So i expected that while caget in BitmaskGetter returns 0, caget into StatusSeparator.A would return 1 and EnableStatus would return "Started". It is not what happens: StatusSeparator returns 0 and EnableStatus returns "Stopped".

To test if the calculation is right, i tried substituting the transform record to a calc one:

record(ai, "${BL}:${H}:${EQ}:BitmaskGetter") {

    field(DESC,
"Bitmask used by other pvs.")
    field(DTYP,"asynInt32")
    field(INP,"@asyn(SIP_EMODBUS_1_1_Rd_Status,0,1000)MODBUS_DATA")
    field(SCAN, "I/O Intr")
    field(FLNK,
"test_calc")
}

record(calcout,
"${BL}:${H}:${EQ}:StatusSeparator""){

    field(DESC,
"PV to process status bitmask")
    field(INPA,
"${BL}:${H}:${EQ}:StatusBitmask")
    field(CALC,
"A+1")
    field(OUT,
"${BL}:${H}:${EQ}:EnableStatus")
}

record(bi,
"${BL}:${H}:${EQ}:EnableStatus"){    field(DESC,
"Power supply status")
    field(ZNAM,
"Stopped")
    field(ONAM,
"Started")
}

And now caget into StatusSeparator returns 1, StatusSeparator.A returns 0, BitmaskGetter returns 0 and EnableStatus returns "Started", as expected.

So i figure field OUTA from the transform record pushes the value in field A (which is zero) to the EnableStatus link. If this is the case, is there any way at all to push the result from CLCA to the EnableStatus link? Also,in which field is the result from CLCA field stored, if any?

Thanks in advance,

Marco

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: Implementing transform field Marco A. Barra Montevechi Filho via Tech-talk

References:: Implementing transform field Marco A. Barra Montevechi Filho via Tech-talk; Re: Implementing transform field Mooney, Tim M. via Tech-talk; Re: Implementing transform field Marco A. Barra Montevechi Filho via Tech-talk; Re: Implementing transform field Marco A. Barra Montevechi Filho via Tech-talk

Navigate by Date:: Prev: Re: Implementing transform field Marco A. Barra Montevechi Filho via Tech-talk; Next: Re: Implementing transform field Andrew Johnson 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> 2023 2024
Navigate by Thread:: Prev: Re: Implementing transform field Marco A. Barra Montevechi Filho via Tech-talk; Next: Re: Implementing transform field Marco A. Barra Montevechi Filho 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> 2023 2024

ANJ, 14 Sep 2022

· Home · News · About · Base · Modules · Extensions · Distributions · Download ·
· Search · EPICS V4 · IRMIS · Talk · Bugs · Documents · Links · Licensing ·

Experimental Physics and Industrial Control System

Experimental Physics and
Industrial Control System