Fix promptgroup settings in record definitions
Bug #1553192 reported by
Ralph Lange
This bug affects 1 person
Affects | Status | Importance | Assigned to | Milestone | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
EPICS Base |
Fix Released
|
Wishlist
|
Ralph Lange | ||
3.15 |
Fix Released
|
Wishlist
|
Ralph Lange |
Bug Description
The AppDevGuide correctly states about promptgroups:
This information is for use by Database Configuration Tools. This is defined only for fields that can be
given values by database configuration tools. File guigroup.h contains all possible definitions. This
allows database configuration tools to group fields together by functionality, not just order them by name.
This feature has seldom been used, so many record types do not have appropriate values assigned to some
fields.
Related branches
lp:~epics-core/epics-base/new-promptgroups
- Andrew Johnson: Approve
- mdavidsaver: Approve
-
Diff: 7100 lines (+1046/-1076)42 files modifieddocumentation/RELEASE_NOTES.html (+12/-0)
src/ioc/db/dbCommon.dbd (+18/-18)
src/ioc/dbStatic/dbBase.h (+3/-2)
src/ioc/dbStatic/dbLexRoutines.c (+19/-10)
src/ioc/dbStatic/dbStaticLib.c (+47/-22)
src/ioc/dbStatic/dbStaticLib.h (+4/-0)
src/ioc/dbStatic/dbStaticPvt.h (+7/-0)
src/ioc/dbStatic/guigroup.h (+6/-63)
src/std/rec/aSubRecord.dbd.pod (+134/-155)
src/std/rec/aaiRecord.dbd (+24/-25)
src/std/rec/aaoRecord.dbd (+24/-25)
src/std/rec/aiRecord.dbd.pod (+42/-42)
src/std/rec/aoRecord.dbd.pod (+49/-49)
src/std/rec/biRecord.dbd (+12/-13)
src/std/rec/boRecord.dbd (+17/-18)
src/std/rec/calcRecord.dbd (+40/-39)
src/std/rec/calcoutRecord.dbd (+38/-38)
src/std/rec/compressRecord.dbd.pod (+11/-11)
src/std/rec/dfanoutRecord.dbd (+52/-52)
src/std/rec/eventRecord.dbd (+7/-8)
src/std/rec/fanoutRecord.dbd (+18/-18)
src/std/rec/histogramRecord.dbd (+14/-15)
src/std/rec/longinRecord.dbd (+28/-29)
src/std/rec/longoutRecord.dbd (+28/-29)
src/std/rec/lsiRecord.dbd (+7/-7)
src/std/rec/lsoRecord.dbd (+11/-11)
src/std/rec/mbbiDirectRecord.dbd (+7/-7)
src/std/rec/mbbiRecord.dbd (+67/-67)
src/std/rec/mbboDirectRecord.dbd (+27/-27)
src/std/rec/mbboRecord.dbd (+61/-61)
src/std/rec/permissiveRecord.dbd (+4/-4)
src/std/rec/printfRecord.dbd (+14/-14)
src/std/rec/selRecord.dbd (+33/-33)
src/std/rec/seqRecord.dbd (+51/-51)
src/std/rec/stateRecord.dbd (+3/-4)
src/std/rec/stringinRecord.dbd (+9/-10)
src/std/rec/stringoutRecord.dbd (+13/-14)
src/std/rec/subArrayRecord.dbd (+13/-14)
src/std/rec/subRecord.dbd (+32/-32)
src/std/rec/waveformRecord.dbd.pod (+21/-21)
src/template/base/top/exampleApp/src/xxxRecord.dbd (+18/-17)
src/tools/DBD/Recfield.pm (+1/-1)
Changed in epics-base: | |
status: | New → In Progress |
Changed in epics-base: | |
milestone: | none → 3.15.branch |
Changed in epics-base: | |
milestone: | 3.15.branch → none |
Changed in epics-base: | |
status: | In Progress → Fix Released |
To post a comment you must log in.
I found major parts of the existing set really badly designed.
Instead of being orthogonal to the record types and defining groups of fields "related to the main functionality", "related to simulation mode", "related to disabling" etc., they go with the record types and define "subroutine related fields of the subroutine record", "multi-bit related fields of the multi-bit records", "specific fields of the compress record" etc.
Many are meaningless and not used in a reasonable way ("GUI_CLOCK", "GUI_TIMER", "GUI_MOTOR")
I would propose a complete and clean redesign. Anyone against that?
What should I do to retain compatibility?
- replace existing defs?
- reuse existing defs and add new types at the end?
- abandon (don't use) existing defs and add a complete new set at the end?