> It turns out that the new priority sequencing of run state transitions had a
> flaw: the frontends, the analyzer and the logger all registered at priority 500
> and were invoked in essentially a random order. For example the frontend could
> get a begin-run transition before the logger and so start sending data before
> the logger opened the output file. Same for the analyzer and same for the end of
> run. Also the sequencing for pause/resume run and begin/end run was different
> when the two pairs ought to have identical sequencing.
> 
> I now commited changes to mana.c and mlogger.c changing their transition sequencing:
> 
> start and resume:
> 200 - logger (mlogger.c, no change)
> 300 - analyzer (mana.c, was 500)
> 500 - frontends (mfe.c, no change)
> 
> stop and pause:
> 500 - frontends (mfe.c, no change)
> 700 - analyzer (mana.c, was 500)
> 800 - mlogger (mlogger.c, was 500)
> 
> P.S. However, even after this change, the TRIUMF ISAC/Dragon experiment still
> see an anomaly in the analyzer, where it receives data events after the
> end-of-run transition.
> 
> K.O.

Thanks for fixing that bug. It happend because during the implementatoin of the priority
sequencing we have up the pre/post tansition, which took care of the proper sequence
between the logger, frontend and analyzer. The way you modified the sequence is
absolutely correct. It is important to have >10 numbers "around" the frontends (like
450...550) in case one has an experiment with >10 frontends which need to make a
transition in a certain sequence (like the DANCE experiment in Los Alamos).