Tweaks #28
Tweaks #28
Conversation
1 similar comment
The data may come from the model and not a pv.
ControlSystem objects still use the name put_value.
Add test to check that the correct behaviour is happening.
1 similar comment
| field = 'b2'; | ||
| elseif strcmp(type, 'VSTR') | ||
| field = 'a0'; | ||
| else |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Would it be more robust to check the type here as well?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Yes. This was a shortcut because everything left was either a bending magnet or a horizontal steerer.
| # each one has both a0 (VSTR) and b0 (HSTR) as fields | ||
| assert set(('a0', 'b0')).issubset(element.get_fields()) | ||
|
|
||
|
|
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I think in some transfer lines or the injectors there are steerers in a single plane.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
This module is designed to check specifically the loading of the VMX lattice, as opposed to something more generic. It's pretty useful for testing that everything is as it should be for Diamond, but it's generally OK because I think bundling the data for a machine is useful for anyone else using this. We could make this a bit clearer in the module name and comments.
|
|
||
| def get_pv_value(self, field, handle, unit=pytac.ENG, sim=False): | ||
| def get_value(self, field, handle, unit=pytac.ENG, sim=False): | ||
| """Get the value of a pv. |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Should pv be removed from the comment as well?
| try: | ||
| return self._devices[field].get_pv_name(handle) | ||
| except KeyError: | ||
| raise PvException('Element has no device for field {}'.format(field)) |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Should this exception be renamed to something more generic, CsException perhaps?
3 participants
@mfurseman we should get you reviewing pytac code.
It should also be moved to dls-controls as well, I suppose.
Any comments?