Re: camonitor vs caput

[Rolf Keitel via Tech-talk <tech-talk at aps.anl.gov>]

Title: signature text

I am not 100% sure if my answer applies to the the I/O Intr scan, but:

When you caput to a record (I am assuming you put to the VAL field, for other fields you need to consult the record reference documentation), this causes the record to *process*. The input link(s) will be processed and the VAL field will be updated (i.e. the value you just put with caput will be clobbered). If the VAL field changes by more than the monitor delta, the record will issue a monitor, otherwise not.

HTH - rolf -

On 2023-12-05 8:12 a.m., Gerrit Kühn via Tech-talk wrote:

> Am Tue, 5 Dec 2023 15:26:16 +0000
> schrieb Érico Nogueira Rolim <erico.rolim at lnls.br>:
>
> >  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.
> >       
> Um, yes, but the record in question isn't passive, it's I/O Intr. It does
> not say "*Only* passive records are processed...".
>
> > 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 do not understand this from what you quoted. The quote is only on
> passive records and says nothing about I/O Intr. Further below it even
> says on processing
>
> ---
> For output links, this option allows a request for remote processing
> (side-effects).
> none (default) - Make no special request. Uses a server specific default.
> false, “NPP” - Request to skip processing.
> true, “PP” - Request to force processing.
> “CP”, “CPP” - For output links, an alias for “PP”.
> ---
>
> I even tried that (writing values from a calcout record to the I/O Intr
> record using PP), but camonitor did not take notice on that case, either.
>
> > 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.
> >       
> Would that be considered a better/cleaner solution than what I already came
> up with (using an auxilary record for I/O Intr and having the actual data
> record passive)?
>
>
> cu
>   Gerrit
>

--
Rolf Keitel, Ph.D.
Researcher Emeritus
e-mail: rolf at triumf.ca
------ Home ------
4158 West 13th Ave
Vancouver, BC, V6R 2T6
604 228 0594
------ Office: ------
604 222 7453
TRIUMF Canada’s particle accelerator centre
4004 Wesbrook Mall Vancouver, BC, V6T 2A3
www.triumf.ca | Twitter | Facebook | Instagram

TRIUMF is located on the traditional, ancestral, and unceded territory of the xʷməθkʷəy̓əm (Musqueam) people,
who for millennia have passed on their culture, history, and traditions from one generation to the next on this site.