> Dear experts,
>               is there any way to launch an executable script on the host computer from the MIDAS 
> sequencer? If not, is there any interest to develop such a feature?
> 
> Thank you,
>          Francesco

The SCRIPT command will do that (on the machine running MIDAS). I know it works with either python or
bash scripts. I tried without success to pass the parameters and I went around by setting ODB entries
prior to running the script and then access to them within the script.

> > Dear experts,
> >               is there any way to launch an executable script on the host computer from the MIDAS 
> > sequencer? If not, is there any interest to develop such a feature?
> > 
> > Thank you,
> >          Francesco
> 
> The SCRIPT command will do that (on the machine running MIDAS). I know it works with either python or
> bash scripts. I tried without success to pass the parameters and I went around by setting ODB entries
> prior to running the script and then access to them within the script.

Passing parameters should work. If it's confirmed to be broken, I'm willing to fix it.

Stefan

Hello Everybody,

I am a member of a satellite team with a scientific payload and I am considering
coordinating the payload using MIDAS. This looks to be challenging since MIDAS
would be implemented on an Xilinx Spartan 6 FPGA with minimal hardware
resources. The idea would be to install a soft processor on the Spartan 6 and
run MIDAS through UCLinux either on the FPGA or boot it from SPI Flash. Does
anybody have any comments on how feasible this would be or perhaps have
experience implementing a similar system?

-Devin

> Hello Everybody,
> 
> I am a member of a satellite team with a scientific payload and I am considering
> coordinating the payload using MIDAS. This looks to be challenging since MIDAS
> would be implemented on an Xilinx Spartan 6 FPGA with minimal hardware
> resources. The idea would be to install a soft processor on the Spartan 6 and
> run MIDAS through UCLinux either on the FPGA or boot it from SPI Flash. Does
> anybody have any comments on how feasible this would be or perhaps have
> experience implementing a similar system?
> 
> -Devin

While some people successfully implemented a midas *client* in an FPGA softcore, the full midas 
backend would probably not fit into a Spartan 6. Having done some FPGA programming and 
working on satellites, I doubt that midas would be well suited for such an environment. It's 
probably some kind of overkill. The complete GUI is likely useless since you want to minimize your 
communication load on the satellite link.

Stefan

> > Hello Everybody,
> > 
> > I am a member of a satellite team with a scientific payload and I am considering
> > coordinating the payload using MIDAS. This looks to be challenging since MIDAS
> > would be implemented on an Xilinx Spartan 6 FPGA with minimal hardware
> > resources. The idea would be to install a soft processor on the Spartan 6 and
> > run MIDAS through UCLinux either on the FPGA or boot it from SPI Flash. Does
> > anybody have any comments on how feasible this would be or perhaps have
> > experience implementing a similar system?
> > 
> > -Devin
> 
> While some people successfully implemented a midas *client* in an FPGA softcore, the full midas 
> backend would probably not fit into a Spartan 6. Having done some FPGA programming and 
> working on satellites, I doubt that midas would be well suited for such an environment. It's 
> probably some kind of overkill. The complete GUI is likely useless since you want to minimize your 
> communication load on the satellite link.
> 
> Stefan

Thank you for your comment Stefan. We do have some hardware resources on the board such as RAM, ROM and
Flash storage so we wouldn't necessarily have to virtualize everything. Ideally we would like a
completed and compressed file to be produced on board and regularly sent back to ground without
requiring remote access. MIDAS is appealing to us because its easily automated but we wouldn't
necessarily need functions like a GUI or web interface. Part of the discussion now is whether or not a
microblaze processor would be sufficient or if we need a dedicted ARM processor.

Devin 

> 
> Thank you for your comment Stefan. We do have some hardware resources on the board such as RAM, ROM and
> Flash storage so we wouldn't necessarily have to virtualize everything. Ideally we would like a
> completed and compressed file to be produced on board and regularly sent back to ground without
> requiring remote access. MIDAS is appealing to us because its easily automated but we wouldn't
> necessarily need functions like a GUI or web interface. Part of the discussion now is whether or not a
> microblaze processor would be sufficient or if we need a dedicted ARM processor.
> 

Hi, just recently I got a midas frontend to build and run on uclinux on a microblaze arm CPU (GRIFFIN CDM VME board).

It worked, but uncovered many problems inside midas - uclinux has no mmu, no multithreading, no recursive mutexes, no 
some of the other stuff assumed always available.

The worst problem I ran into was with uclinux giving us a very small stack so code like "int main() { char buf[10*1024]; }
crashes right away and there is a lot of code like this in midas.

My feeling about the xilinx soft-core CPU, if you can run uclinux, you can also run a midas frontend. We do not require 
memory beyond that needed to store one or two of your data events.

By design, the midas library can be built in a "minimal" configuration that only supports a frontend connected
to the mserver (no local ODB, no local event buffers, no local mhttpd/mlogger, etc).

As you have seen in the Makefile, there are provisions for cross-compilation and I cross-compile midas things quite often.

On the other side, if you have xilinx FPGA with build-in PowerPC CPU, most definitely you can run full linux
and you can run full midas on it, we have done this for the T2K/ND280 experiment in Japan.

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

> > 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 remain consistent with the other programs that we are using for 
our experiment (Pyrame and Calicoes from LLR). I am also using Linux systemd to enable mhttpd on startup (and other handy features like auto-
restart after a crash) and unfortunally CentOS doesn't support to enable 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

> > > Hmm... for most experiments, we do not "install" midas. I should probably remove the "install" target from the Makefile.
>
> install MIDAS in the /opt/midas folder to remain consistent with the other programs that we are using for 
> our experiment (Pyrame and Calicoes from LLR).

I see. Would this work as well? Instead of "make install" do this:
su - root
cd /opt
git pull midas
cd midas
make
add /opt/midas/linux/bin to your PATH. (is it time to get rid of the "linux" part from the default build path?!?)

> I am also using Linux systemd to enable mhttpd on startup

We use cron @reboot to start mhttpd.

But. CentOS7 systemd cron unit file has a bug and they run @reboot cron jobs before NIS and autofs is ready, see
http://www.triumf.info/wiki/DAQwiki/index.php/SLinstall#Enable_crontab_.40reboot_for_MIDAS_.28CentOS7.29

Can you post your systemd unit file to this elog, others may find it useful.

K.O.

> I see. Would this work as well? Instead of "make install" do this:
> su - root
> cd /opt
> git pull midas
> cd midas
> make
> add /opt/midas/linux/bin to your PATH. (is it time to get rid of the "linux" part from the default build path?!?)

Got it. I will do that in the future.

> Can you post your systemd unit file to this elog, others may find it useful.

[Unit]
Description=MIDAS data acquisition system
After=network.target
StartLimitIntervalSec=0

[Service]
Type=simple
Restart=always
RestartSec=3
User=neo
ExecStart=/opt/midas/bin/mhttpd -e WAGASCI --http 8081 --https 8444
Environment="MIDASSYS=/opt/midas" "MIDAS_EXPTAB=/home/neo/Code/WAGASCI/MIDAS/online/exptab" "MIDAS_EXPT_NAME=WAGASCI" 
"SVN_EDITOR=emacs -nw" "GIT_EDITOR=emacs -nw"
PassEnvironment=MIDASSYS MIDAS_EXPTAB MIDAS_EXPT_NAME SVN_EDITOR GIT_EDITOR

[Install]
WantedBy=multi-user.target

Dear all,
        I need to implement a DAQ sequence where a short run (100 events, which takes a couple of 
minutes) is taken every hour, with a long run in between two short runs. In the sequencer, I can do:

LOOP infinite

.... some ODB settings ....
     TRANSITION START
     WAIT events 100
     TRANSITION STOP

.... some ODB settings ....
     TRANSITION START
     WAIT seconds 3600
     TRANSITION STOP

ENDLOOP


I have two questions: 

- for the long run, I want to write on disk only a maximum number of events. I think I can suppress 
the event polling in the frontend, with an ODB query of the number of collected events. I'm 
wondering if there is a smarter way to do that. It is also ok if the run is stopped after a maximum 
number of events, but the subsequent short run should still start exactly after 1h from the previous 
short run. 

- with the script above, the real time lapse between the start of two short runs would depend on 
the duration of the short run itself. Is there a way to start the short run exactly 1 h after the starting 
of the previous short run?

Thank you in advance for your help,
              Francesco

Dear all,
         I'm running a DAQ frontend and it works well if one single run is
taken. If I try to take a second run right after, the run is performed but, when
stopping it, I get the error messages below. Any hint?

Thank you for your help,
      Francesco


11:42:24.012 2019/03/12 [mhttpd,ERROR] [midas.c:6022:cm_shutdown,ERROR] Killing
and Deleting client 'cygnus_daq' pid 12472

11:42:24.012 2019/03/12 [mhttpd,ERROR] [midas.c:6019:cm_shutdown,ERROR] Cannot
connect to client 'cygnus_daq' on host 'localhost', port 46341

11:42:24.012 2019/03/12 [mhttpd,ERROR] [midas.c:9539:rpc_client_connect,ERROR]
cannot connect to host "localhost", port 46341: connect() returned -1, errno 111
(Connection refused)

11:42:24.012 2019/03/12 [mhttpd,ERROR] [midas.c:10821:rpc_client_call,ERROR]
call to "cygnus_daq" on "localhost" RPC "rc_transition": error,
ss_recv_net_command() status 411

11:42:24.012 2019/03/12 [mhttpd,ERROR] [system.c:4715:ss_recv_net_command,ERROR]
error receiving network command header, see messages

11:42:24.011 2019/03/12 [mhttpd,ERROR] [system.c:4661:recv_tcp2,ERROR]
unexpected connection closure

11:42:23.994 2019/03/12 [cygnus_daq,ERROR] [midas.c:1951:,ERROR]
cm_disconnect_experiment not called at end of program

> Is there a way to start the short run exactly 1 h after the starting 
> of the previous short run?

This is not possible with the current sequencer.

> 
> .... some ODB settings ....
>      TRANSITION START
>      WAIT events 100
>      TRANSITION STOP
> I have two questions: 
> 
> - for the long run, I want to write on disk only a maximum number of events. I think I can suppress 
> the event polling in the frontend, with an ODB query of the number of collected events. I'm 
> wondering if there is a smarter way to do that. It is also ok if the run is stopped after a maximum 
> number of events, but the subsequent short run should still start exactly after 1h from the previous 
> short run. 

I don't know about a way to give you an exact number of events (maybe /Logger/Run duration). 

I personally use 
    WAIT ODBValue,"/Equipment/DTM/Statistics/Events sent",>,100

Where DTM is the frontend of my trigger. Because of the lag in the run stop, the run will always exceed by few
seconds*rates.

Hope it helps

> > Can you post your systemd unit file to this elog, others may find it useful.

Thank you very much!

Note: user name "neo" and home directory is hardwired into the unit file. Also
it runs after "network.target", this may be too early, it should run after nis and autofs
have started (and made home directories accessible). (not sure what systemd target
that is).

K.O.

> 
> [Unit]
> Description=MIDAS data acquisition system
> After=network.target
> StartLimitIntervalSec=0
> 
> [Service]
> Type=simple
> Restart=always
> RestartSec=3
> User=neo
> ExecStart=/opt/midas/bin/mhttpd -e WAGASCI --http 8081 --https 8444
> Environment="MIDASSYS=/opt/midas" "MIDAS_EXPTAB=/home/neo/Code/WAGASCI/MIDAS/online/exptab" 
"MIDAS_EXPT_NAME=WAGASCI" 
> "SVN_EDITOR=emacs -nw" "GIT_EDITOR=emacs -nw"
> PassEnvironment=MIDASSYS MIDAS_EXPTAB MIDAS_EXPT_NAME SVN_EDITOR GIT_EDITOR
> 
> [Install]
> WantedBy=multi-user.target