> 
> The header file used to defined the CAEN types (CAENVMEtypes.h) defines 'CAEN_BOOL' like this:
> 
> 
> #ifdef LINUX
> #define CAEN_BYTE   	unsigned char
> #define CAEN_BOOL   	int
> #else
> #define CAEN_BYTE   	byte
> #define CAEN_BOOL   	VARIANT_BOOL
> #endif
> 

Complain to CAEN.

The year is 2020 and they should use standard C/C++ data types from stdint.h (uint32_t, etc).

K.O.

I write some configure file to build MIDAS using CMake. The usage is simple:
1. Unzip the attachment, copy "CMakeLists.txt" and directory "cmake" into the
midas source tree.
   $ cp -rp CMakeLists.txt cmake/  <PATH-TO-MIDAS>/
2. make a separate directory, such as "build". It's a good habit to build a
project without polluting the source tree. :-)
   $ mkdir build
3. Executing cmake
   $ cd build && cmake <PATH-TO-MIDAS>
4. Make
   $ make

Or, you can generate Xcode project files:
  $ cmake -G Xcode <PATH-TO-MIDAS>
or using visual studio
  $ cmake -G "Visual Studio" <PATH-TO-MIDAS>
(I havn't Visual Studio and windows, so the above command is not tested.)
or using other IDEs, such as KDevelop3, Eclipse, etc, just type:
  $ cmake -G "KDevelop3" <PATH-TO-MIDAS>
or
  $ cmake -G "Eclipse CDT4" <PATH-TO-MIDAS>


I test the configure file with GNU make and CMake 2.6.4 on Debian Lenny. I
havn't add installation commands now. Maybe later. If anyone interests in it, I
may check it again. Anyway, I'm using it.

src/mlogger.cxx: In function ‘INT midas_flush_buffer(LOG_CHN*)’:
src/mlogger.cxx:1011:54: error: invalid conversion from ‘void*’ to ‘gzFile’ [-fpermissive]
In file included from src/mlogger.cxx:33:0:
/usr/include/zlib.h:1318:21: error:   initializing argument 1 of ‘int gzwrite(gzFile, voidpc, unsigned int)’ [-fpermissive]
src/mlogger.cxx: In function ‘INT midas_log_open(LOG_CHN*, INT)’:
src/mlogger.cxx:1200:79: error: invalid conversion from ‘void*’ to ‘gzFile’ [-fpermissive]
In file included from src/mlogger.cxx:33:0:

Stefan's fix is incomplete - the "gzFile" cast is needed for all calls to zlib, not just those that some version 
of GCC happens to complain about. Fixed.
svn rev 5286.

BTW, I read the midas elog via email and if you post html or elcode messages, I receive complete 
gibberish. For prompt service, please select message type "plain". (yes, you cannot use fancy colours and 
blinking text, but better than me not reading your stuff at all).

BTW2, for easier reading, please include error messages as plain text in your message. As opposed to 
compressed attachements.

K.O.

src/mana.c: In function ‘write_event_hbook’:
src/mana.c:2881: error: invalid assignment

src/mana.c: In function ‘write_event_hbook’:
src/mana.c:2881: warning: target of assignment not really an lvalue; this will be a hard error in the future

2880            /* shift data pointer to next item */
2881            (char *) pdata += key.item_size * key.num_values;

2880            /* shift data pointer to next item */
2881            pdata += key.item_size * key.num_values * sizeof(char) ;

1. Untar daq-midas_deb.tar.gz somewhere, assumming ~/Temp.
2. cd ~/Temp/daq-midas
3. svn co -r 5065 svn+ssh://svn@savannah.psi.ch/repos/meg/midas/trunk midas
4. svn co -r 68 svn+ssh://svn@savannah.psi.ch/repos/meg/mxml/trunk mxml
5. cp -rvp debian/autoconf/* ./
6. ./configure --help
7. ./configure <--options>
8. make && make install

1. untar daq-midas_deb.tar.gz somewhere, assuming ~/Temp.
2. cd ~/Temp/daq-midas
3. svn co -r 5065 svn+ssh://svn@savannah.psi.ch/repos/meg/midas/trunk midas
4. svn co -r 68 svn+ssh://svn@savannah.psi.ch/repos/meg/mxml/trunk mxml
5. dpkg-buildpackage -b -us -uc

• daq-midas-doc -- The documents and references
  
• daq-midas-root -- the midas runtime library and utilities built with root
  
• daq-midas-noroot -- the midas runtime library and utilities built without root
  
• daq-midas-dev-root -- the midas devel files (headers, objects, drivers, examples) built with root
  
• daq-midas-dev-noroot -- the midas devel files (headers, objects, drivers, examples) built without root
  

• executalbes -- /usr/lib/daq-midas/bin
  
• library and objs -- /usr/lib/daq-midas/lib
  
• headers -- /usr/lib/daq-midas/include
  
• sources and drivers -- /usr/share/daq-midas/
  
• docs and examples -- /usr/share/doc/daq-midas
  
• mdaq-config -- /usr/bin/mdaq-config
  

gcc `mdaq-config --cflags` -c -o myfe.o myfe.c
gcc `mdaq-config --libs` -o myfe myfe.o `mdaq-config --libdir`/mfe.o

• each midas experiment will be configured in a file named "mdaq.yaml"
  
• mdaq.py reads the configure file and prepare the daq environment, just like "examples/experiment/start_daq.sh"
  
• mdaq.py will handle "start/stop/restart/info" about the daq codes.
  

> I deployed several Debian Linux boxes as the DAQ systems in our lab. But I
feel it's boring to build and install midas and its related softwares (such as
root) on each box.


Our solution at TRIUMF is to install such packages on a shared NFS filesystem
visible to all client computers. This works well for ROOT and but MIDAS we found
it nearly impossible to keep MIDAS versions in sync between different projects
and expiments, so each experiment uses it's own copy of MIDAS, usually located
in the experiment home directory ($HOME/packages/midas). Because we often need
to make local modifications to MIDAS sources (Makefile, etc), we do not
"install" MIDAS into non-user-writable /usr/local & etc.


> I use autoconf/automake


The promise (premise) of autoconf/automake is to "hide" system dependencies. The
scripts are supposed to automatically probe the build environment and construct
an appropriate Makefile.

In practice, the autotool scripts always have bugs and incorrect assumptions
about the build environment and only work well for a few standardized systems
(RHEL and Debian derivatives) where the differences are so trivial that
autotools is an overkill and a normal Makefile is adequate for the job.

In my experience, as soon as I try to build an autotool-ized package on anything
that does not look like RHEL or Debian, autotool scripts explode and have to be
debugged and kludged by hand. Anybody who has ever done that would agree with me
that one would rather hack the ugliest Makefile than any of the  autotool
generated gibberish.

And of course autotools have never handled cross-compilation in any reasonable
way. Since we do cross-compile MIDAS (for VxWorks and embedded Linux, see "make
crosscompile") a Makefile is required and it so happens that the same Makefile
also works for normal Linux and MacOS, thank you very much.



> Here are the installation:
> [*] executalbes -- /usr/lib/daq-midas/bin
> [*] library and objs -- /usr/lib/daq-midas/lib


Is this in violation of the LSB (or LFS)? I though they mandate that files
controlled by package manager should be /usr/bin/odbedit, /usr/lib64/libmidas.a,
etc (/usr/bin/midas/odbedit no permitted).


> gcc `mdaq-config --cflags` -c -o myfe.o myfe.c


Please check if your config scripts correctly handle the "-m32" and "-m64" flags
- we frequently cross-compile 32-bit MIDAS executables on 64-bit machines.


K.O.

Hi,

I am running a simple FE executable that is supposed to define a PRAW DWORD bank.
The issue is that, right after the start of the run, the logger crashes without messages.
Then the FE reports this error, which is rather confusing.
```
12:59:29.140 2021/05/24 [feTestDatastruct,ERROR] [odb.cxx:6986:db_set_data1,ERROR] "/Equipment/Trigger/Variables/PRAW" is of type UINT32, not UINT32
```

> Hi,
> 
> I am running a simple FE executable that is supposed to define a PRAW DWORD bank.
> The issue is that, right after the start of the run, the logger crashes without messages.
> Then the FE reports this error, which is rather confusing.
> ```
> 12:59:29.140 2021/05/24 [feTestDatastruct,ERROR] [odb.cxx:6986:db_set_data1,ERROR] "/Equipment/Trigger/Variables/PRAW" is of type UINT32, not UINT32
> ```

I think this is fixed in latest midas. There was a typo in this message, the same tid was printed twice,
with result you report "mismatch UINT32 and UINT32", instead of "mismatch of UINT32 vs what is actually there".

This fixes the message, after that you have to manually fix the mismatch in the data type in ODB (delete old one, I guess).

K.O.

Hello!
My name is Giorgio Pintaudi and I am a Ph.D. student at Yokohama National 
University (Japan). I also happen to be a T2K collaborator.
I am currently developing the DAQ software for a T2K near detector called WAGASCI 
(different from ND280) and we recently decided to adopt MIDAS as a user 
interface.
Now I am using the "develop" branch of the MIDAS BitBucket repository: I merge 
the remote repository every now and then with my local copy and that is fine ... 
but on the 25th of April our experiment is officially starting and I was 
wondering which version of MIDAS should I use for "production".
So my question is:
For a running experiment that needs software stability what branch of the MIDAS 
repository is better suited? The master branch or the develop branch? Moreover, 
what point in time do you think is more stable?
Best regards
Giorgio

Hi, Giorgio - you are asking excellent questions. I will try to answer them, but as ever, there are no 
easy answers.

In general, the top of the midas "develop" branch is "the best midas there is".

So for a new experiment, it is a reasonable place to start. Of course you can see
that there is quite a bit of commit activity going on, however, most substantial
changes are done on separate branches, where we try the new code, debug
it and test it. Only when the new code is "ready", we commit it to the "develop"
branch. Then, most often, we find some more last minute post-merge bugs,
and fix them right then and there on the head of the "develop" branch. Eventually
the dust settles and we have stable code that stays stable for a long time.

For example, right now we are waiting for the dust to settle on the change
of the MIDAS URL scheme, which was necessitated by needs of several experiments
that have more-complex-then-usual https proxy configurations. Unusual today,
but more common as we move forward, I think.

So if the head of the "develop" branch does not work for you, we encourage
that you file a bug report (here on this forum or on the bitbucket issue tracker).

While we try to sort out your problem, you can fall back to a previous version
of midas:

a) go back to one of the older "midas-YYYY-MM-X" tags
b) go back to one of the release candidate branches "feature/midas-YYYY-MM".

But if you have an already running system and you already have a working
instance of MIDAS, you do not have to update it to the latest version
unless you need some newest feature or you suffer from a bug
that has been fixed in a newer version.

In general, I find that it is fairly safe to update a working instance of MIDAS to
the latest code. But do keep your old working copy, if there is trouble, you can
always go back to something that works.

Now to your questions:

> For a running experiment that needs software stability what branch of the MIDAS 
> repository is better suited?

easy to answer. the most stable is the version you are using right now (doh!). each time
you upgrade, there is a risk that something will go wrong.

if you start from scratch, use the head of the "develop" branch (the latest and greatest),
if you run into trouble, report the trouble and update to a newer version with your
trouble fixed, or go back in time to previous tags and release candidate branches (as I described 
above).

> The master branch or the develop branch?

the "develop" branch.

> Moreover, what point in time do you think is more stable?

I find that it is impossible to have a stable-stable-stable version of midas
because the rest of the world flows forward in time. Old versions of midas
stop compiling because of OS and compiler changes; they stop running
because of OS or web browser or hardware changes. Then somebody
always asks for new features and new or old bugs surface constantly.

But we try to mark some "good" spots using git tags and release branches,
however the more far you go back in time, the more likely the code will
not even compile anymore.


K.O.



> Hello!
> My name is Giorgio Pintaudi and I am a Ph.D. student at Yokohama National 
> University (Japan). I also happen to be a T2K collaborator.
> I am currently developing the DAQ software for a T2K near detector called WAGASCI 
> (different from ND280) and we recently decided to adopt MIDAS as a user 
> interface.
> Now I am using the "develop" branch of the MIDAS BitBucket repository: I merge 
> the remote repository every now and then with my local copy and that is fine ... 
> but on the 25th of April our experiment is officially starting and I was 
> wondering which version of MIDAS should I use for "production".
> So my question is:
> For a running experiment that needs software stability what branch of the MIDAS 
> repository is better suited? The master branch or the develop branch? Moreover, 
> what point in time do you think is more stable?
> Best regards
> Giorgio

Hi Konstantin,
thank you for the very in-depth answer. Right now I am using the latest version of MIDAS (the head of the 
develop branch) and I have not noticed any bugs or problems in the MIDAS code, except the ones that I 
myself put in the part of the code that I am developing of course.
So I will do as you suggest and continue to use the head of the develop branch.
Thank you again for taking the time to answer all my questions!

PS other than the code peculiar to our experiment, I have made a little modification to the MIDAS install 
Makefile (I noticed that there is an "install" target but not an "uninstall" target so I wrote it).
If you are interested, I could make a merge request on BitBucket, just let me know.

Bests
Giorgio

> Hi, Giorgio - you are asking excellent questions. I will try to answer them, but as ever, there are no 
> easy answers.
> 
> In general, the top of the midas "develop" branch is "the best midas there is".
> 
> So for a new experiment, it is a reasonable place to start. Of course you can see
> that there is quite a bit of commit activity going on, however, most substantial
> changes are done on separate branches, where we try the new code, debug
> it and test it. Only when the new code is "ready", we commit it to the "develop"
> branch. Then, most often, we find some more last minute post-merge bugs,
> and fix them right then and there on the head of the "develop" branch. Eventually
> the dust settles and we have stable code that stays stable for a long time.
> 
> For example, right now we are waiting for the dust to settle on the change
> of the MIDAS URL scheme, which was necessitated by needs of several experiments
> that have more-complex-then-usual https proxy configurations. Unusual today,
> but more common as we move forward, I think.
> 
> So if the head of the "develop" branch does not work for you, we encourage
> that you file a bug report (here on this forum or on the bitbucket issue tracker).
> 
> While we try to sort out your problem, you can fall back to a previous version
> of midas:
> 
> a) go back to one of the older "midas-YYYY-MM-X" tags
> b) go back to one of the release candidate branches "feature/midas-YYYY-MM".
> 
> But if you have an already running system and you already have a working
> instance of MIDAS, you do not have to update it to the latest version
> unless you need some newest feature or you suffer from a bug
> that has been fixed in a newer version.
> 
> In general, I find that it is fairly safe to update a working instance of MIDAS to
> the latest code. But do keep your old working copy, if there is trouble, you can
> always go back to something that works.
> 
> Now to your questions:
> 
> > For a running experiment that needs software stability what branch of the MIDAS 
> > repository is better suited?
> 
> easy to answer. the most stable is the version you are using right now (doh!). each time
> you upgrade, there is a risk that something will go wrong.
> 
> if you start from scratch, use the head of the "develop" branch (the latest and greatest),
> if you run into trouble, report the trouble and update to a newer version with your
> trouble fixed, or go back in time to previous tags and release candidate branches (as I described 
> above).
> 
> > The master branch or the develop branch?
> 
> the "develop" branch.
> 
> > Moreover, what point in time do you think is more stable?
> 
> I find that it is impossible to have a stable-stable-stable version of midas
> because the rest of the world flows forward in time. Old versions of midas
> stop compiling because of OS and compiler changes; they stop running
> because of OS or web browser or hardware changes. Then somebody
> always asks for new features and new or old bugs surface constantly.
> 
> But we try to mark some "good" spots using git tags and release branches,
> however the more far you go back in time, the more likely the code will
> not even compile anymore.
> 
> 
> K.O.
> 
> 
> 
> > Hello!
> > My name is Giorgio Pintaudi and I am a Ph.D. student at Yokohama National 
> > University (Japan). I also happen to be a T2K collaborator.
> > I am currently developing the DAQ software for a T2K near detector called WAGASCI 
> > (different from ND280) and we recently decided to adopt MIDAS as a user 
> > interface.
> > Now I am using the "develop" branch of the MIDAS BitBucket repository: I merge 
> > the remote repository every now and then with my local copy and that is fine ... 
> > but on the 25th of April our experiment is officially starting and I was 
> > wondering which version of MIDAS should I use for "production".
> > So my question is:
> > For a running experiment that needs software stability what branch of the MIDAS 
> > repository is better suited? The master branch or the develop branch? Moreover, 
> > what point in time do you think is more stable?
> > Best regards
> > Giorgio

> 
> PS other than the code peculiar to our experiment, I have made a little modification to the MIDAS install 
> Makefile (I noticed that there is an "install" target but not an "uninstall" target so I wrote it).
> If you are interested, I could make a merge request on BitBucket, just let me know.
> 

Hmm... for most experiments, we do not "install" midas. I should probably remove the "install" target from the Makefile.

K.O.



> Bests
> Giorgio
> 
> > Hi, Giorgio - you are asking excellent questions. I will try to answer them, but as ever, there are no 
> > easy answers.
> > 
> > In general, the top of the midas "develop" branch is "the best midas there is".
> > 
> > So for a new experiment, it is a reasonable place to start. Of course you can see
> > that there is quite a bit of commit activity going on, however, most substantial
> > changes are done on separate branches, where we try the new code, debug
> > it and test it. Only when the new code is "ready", we commit it to the "develop"
> > branch. Then, most often, we find some more last minute post-merge bugs,
> > and fix them right then and there on the head of the "develop" branch. Eventually
> > the dust settles and we have stable code that stays stable for a long time.
> > 
> > For example, right now we are waiting for the dust to settle on the change
> > of the MIDAS URL scheme, which was necessitated by needs of several experiments
> > that have more-complex-then-usual https proxy configurations. Unusual today,
> > but more common as we move forward, I think.
> > 
> > So if the head of the "develop" branch does not work for you, we encourage
> > that you file a bug report (here on this forum or on the bitbucket issue tracker).
> > 
> > While we try to sort out your problem, you can fall back to a previous version
> > of midas:
> > 
> > a) go back to one of the older "midas-YYYY-MM-X" tags
> > b) go back to one of the release candidate branches "feature/midas-YYYY-MM".
> > 
> > But if you have an already running system and you already have a working
> > instance of MIDAS, you do not have to update it to the latest version
> > unless you need some newest feature or you suffer from a bug
> > that has been fixed in a newer version.
> > 
> > In general, I find that it is fairly safe to update a working instance of MIDAS to
> > the latest code. But do keep your old working copy, if there is trouble, you can
> > always go back to something that works.
> > 
> > Now to your questions:
> > 
> > > For a running experiment that needs software stability what branch of the MIDAS 
> > > repository is better suited?
> > 
> > easy to answer. the most stable is the version you are using right now (doh!). each time
> > you upgrade, there is a risk that something will go wrong.
> > 
> > if you start from scratch, use the head of the "develop" branch (the latest and greatest),
> > if you run into trouble, report the trouble and update to a newer version with your
> > trouble fixed, or go back in time to previous tags and release candidate branches (as I described 
> > above).
> > 
> > > The master branch or the develop branch?
> > 
> > the "develop" branch.
> > 
> > > Moreover, what point in time do you think is more stable?
> > 
> > I find that it is impossible to have a stable-stable-stable version of midas
> > because the rest of the world flows forward in time. Old versions of midas
> > stop compiling because of OS and compiler changes; they stop running
> > because of OS or web browser or hardware changes. Then somebody
> > always asks for new features and new or old bugs surface constantly.
> > 
> > But we try to mark some "good" spots using git tags and release branches,
> > however the more far you go back in time, the more likely the code will
> > not even compile anymore.
> > 
> > 
> > K.O.
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > > Hello!
> > > My name is Giorgio Pintaudi and I am a Ph.D. student at Yokohama National 
> > > University (Japan). I also happen to be a T2K collaborator.
> > > I am currently developing the DAQ software for a T2K near detector called WAGASCI 
> > > (different from ND280) and we recently decided to adopt MIDAS as a user 
> > > interface.
> > > Now I am using the "develop" branch of the MIDAS BitBucket repository: I merge 
> > > the remote repository every now and then with my local copy and that is fine ... 
> > > but on the 25th of April our experiment is officially starting and I was 
> > > wondering which version of MIDAS should I use for "production".
> > > So my question is:
> > > For a running experiment that needs software stability what branch of the MIDAS 
> > > repository is better suited? The master branch or the develop branch? Moreover, 
> > > what point in time do you think is more stable?
> > > Best regards
> > > Giorgio

> Hmm... for most experiments, we do not "install" midas. I should probably remove the "install" target from the Makefile.


... and change the documentation accordingly (Suzannah!?). Installing midas these days does not really make sense, since normally only one 
users uses it on a given machine.

Stefan

> > Hmm... for most experiments, we do not "install" midas. I should probably remove the "install" target from the Makefile.
> 
> 
> ... and change the documentation accordingly (Suzannah!?). Installing midas these days does not really make sense, since normally only one 
> users uses it on a given machine.
> 
> Stefan

I understand. Anyway, I preferred to install MIDAS in the /opt/midas folder to be consistent with the other programs (Pyrame and Calicoes from LLR) that we are using for our experiment (they are all installed in the /opt folder). Moreover, I am using Linux systemd to enable mhttpd on startup (and other handy features like auto-restart after a crash). And quite unfortunately CentOS doesn't support to start systemd units as a non-root user.
So in my particular case, perhaps it made some sense to install MIDAS in a folder other than the source code folder.

Giorgio