Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Use asyn_motors.db if simulating motors #652

Open
wants to merge 1 commit into
base: master
Choose a base branch
from

Conversation

FreddieAkeroyd
Copy link
Member

Description of work

Load standard motor module asyn_motors.db instead of galil_motors.db when simulating motors

To test

See ISISComputingGroup/IBEX#6881

Acceptance criteria

  • Issue with MRES fixed

Code Review

Functional Tests

  • IOC responds correctly in:
    • Devsim mode
    • Recsim mode
    • Real device, if available
  • Supplementary IOCs (..._0n where n>1) run correctly
  • Log files do not report undefined macros (serach for macLib: macro to find instances of macLib: macro [macro name] is undefined...

Final steps

  • Update the IOC submodule in the main EPICS repo. See Git workflow page for details.
  • Reviewer has merged the associated PR for the release notes

Copy link
Contributor

@DominicOram DominicOram left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

I think we should continue to use galil_motors as we actually caught an issue here that may be occurring in production. If we switch to just asyn_motors, which is not what we use for most of the time then we may miss other issues

@FreddieAkeroyd
Copy link
Member Author

My concern with using galil_motors was that it defines a load of extra asyn parameters that are not present in the simulated motor, so I though we may introduce problems/instabilities in the tests that are not really there. We should see if the associated MRES fix on its own is enough for the tests, but may find we need to do this too.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

2 participants