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

eurotherm: handle missing sensor better #8310

Comments

@FreddieAkeroyd
Copy link
Member

FreddieAkeroyd commented Apr 25, 2024

As a developer i would like the eurotherm to handle a missing sensor better. As seen recently, the IOC was configured for sensors 1,2,3 but 1 had been removed. This resulted in calls to read sensor 1 timing out, but the queue of such reads caused other reads on 2 and 3 to time out, though occasionally a read from 2 or 3 would get through, so they were intermittently showing the right value but mostly in alarm.

maybe the read chain could be modified so that if the first read fails it does not continue the others in that chain on that iteration. It looks like may initiate reads via record(seq, "$(P)READ") ` every second. given timeouts in reads, i feel one approach may be to

  • separate out one particular read (may even be a duplicate of something we do) to a separate read loop at say 5 second interval. if this read fails, the record will go into alarm
  • change record(seq, "$(P)READ_RESTART")` to be a calcout or similar sort of record. what we want it to do is scan every second, but part of this is to check the alarm status of the 5 second scan record above and if that is in alarm not to initiate the record(seq, "$(P)READ") sequence.

Acceptance criteria

communication with a missing sensor does not affect other working sensors

Time in Planning

1:00:39 02/05/24

@LowriJenkins
Copy link
Contributor

Freddie plans to make this ticket clearer, if you don't understand it, ask him.

@KathrynBaker KathrynBaker added 5 and removed proposal labels May 2, 2024
@github-actions github-actions bot added the ready label May 2, 2024
@KathrynBaker KathrynBaker added this to the SPRINT_2024_05_02 milestone May 2, 2024
@KathrynBaker KathrynBaker moved this to Backlog in PI_2024_02 May 2, 2024
@esmith1729 esmith1729 self-assigned this May 9, 2024
@github-actions github-actions bot added in progress and removed ready labels May 9, 2024
@KathrynBaker KathrynBaker moved this from Backlog to In Progress in PI_2024_02 May 13, 2024
esmith1729 added a commit that referenced this issue May 14, 2024
@esmith1729 esmith1729 linked a pull request May 14, 2024 that will close this issue
@esmith1729 esmith1729 linked a pull request May 14, 2024 that will close this issue
@KathrynBaker KathrynBaker moved this from In Progress to Review in PI_2024_02 May 16, 2024
@github-actions github-actions bot added the ready label May 21, 2024
@isaachilly isaachilly moved this from Review to In Progress in PI_2024_02 May 21, 2024
@isaachilly
Copy link
Contributor

isaachilly commented May 21, 2024

Rework info

The Lewis test need to simulate just one addr being disconnected not all of them which it is currently doing. This may need writing a new Lewis command that only simulates the disconnection of one addr.
Test needs to check it can write and read values from the other addr/s with 1/more addr being disconnected.

@esmith1729
Copy link
Contributor

Changed points to an 8, due to having to accommodate changes to modbus_interface as well as stream_interface, and some changes to the utils files.

@esmith1729 esmith1729 moved this from In Progress to Review in PI_2024_08 Nov 11, 2024
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment