You signed in with another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You signed out in another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You switched accounts on another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.Dismiss alert
Also, when using alarm.MINOR_ALARM instead of "MINOR" I got:
Traceback (most recent call last):
File "/dls/science/users/tmc43/common/python/pythonIoc/tests/sim_records.py", line 29, in <module>
t_mbbi = mbbIn('MBBI', 'One', 'Two', ('Three', alarm.MINOR_ALARM), initial_value=2)
File "/dls/science/users/tmc43/common/python/pythonIoc/softioc/builder.py", line 86, in mbbIn
return _in_record('mbbi', name, **fields)
File "/dls/science/users/tmc43/common/python/pythonIoc/softioc/builder.py", line 28, in _in_record
return getattr(PythonDevice, record)(name, **fields)
File "/dls/science/users/tmc43/common/python/pythonIoc/softioc/pythonSoftIoc.py", line 105, in __call__
DTYP = self.dtyp, **fields)
File "/dls/science/users/tmc43/common/python/pythonIoc/softioc/pythonSoftIoc.py", line 33, in __init__
record = builder(name, **fields)
File "/scratch/tmc43/pipenv/pythonIoc-y_I5oBLg/lib/python3.7/site-packages/epicsdbbuilder/recordbase.py", line 129, in __init__
setattr(self, name, value)
File "/scratch/tmc43/pipenv/pythonIoc-y_I5oBLg/lib/python3.7/site-packages/epicsdbbuilder/recordbase.py", line 195, in __setattr__
self.__ValidateField(fieldname, value)
File "/scratch/tmc43/pipenv/pythonIoc-y_I5oBLg/lib/python3.7/site-packages/epicsdbbuilder/recordbase.py", line 206, in __ValidateField
self._validate.ValidFieldValue(fieldname, str(value))
File "/scratch/tmc43/pipenv/pythonIoc-y_I5oBLg/lib/python3.7/site-packages/epicsdbbuilder/dbd.py", line 96, in ValidFieldValue
'Can\'t write "%s" to field %s: %s' % (value, name, message)
AssertionError: Can't write "1" to field TWSV: Not a valid menu choice
Regarding using alarm.MINOR_ALARM, yes, I'm afraid that's how it works. I think that putting in special hacks to work around this would be a terrible idea! At least we get a pretty straightforward error message...
Regarding using alarm.MINOR_ALARM, yes, I'm afraid that's how it works. I think that putting in special hacks to work around this would be a terrible idea! At least we get a pretty straightforward error message...
I was wondering if this was new behaviour, as the original docs and your updated docs both mentioned using alarm.MIINOR_ALARM when specifying mbbi/o records...
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
Also, when using
alarm.MINOR_ALARMinstead of"MINOR"I got: