Hey folks,

I'm currently working on setting up a MIDAS experiment and I am following the 
"Setup MIDAS experiment at Triumf" page on 
MidasWiki(https://midas.triumf.ca/MidasWiki/index.php/Setup_MIDAS_experiment_at_
TRIUMF).

The 3rd line of the hardware checklist under the "Prepare VME hardware section" 
has a link to a page that doesn't exit anymore, I'm trying to figure out how to 
setup the VME address jumpers on the VME modules.

Does anyone know how to setup the VME modules? Or, can anyone send me a link to 
instructions?

Thanks a lot for your time.

Isaac

Hi, if you are not using any VME hardware, then you have no VME address jumpers to 
set. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/VMEbus

K.O.

> Hi, if you are not using any VME hardware, then you have no VME address jumpers to 
> set. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/VMEbus
> 
> K.O.

Hi thanks for taking the time to help me out. I am using a VME-MWS in this experiment.

Let me know what you think.

Isaac

Today I fixed a long-annoying problem. We have in each front-end an equipment structure 
which defined the event id, event type, readout frequency etc. This is mapped to the ODB 
subtree

/Equipment/<name>/Common

In the past, the ODB setting took precedence over the frontend structure. We defined this 
like 25 years ago and I forgot what the exact reason was. It causes however many people 
(including myself) to fall into this trap: You change something in the front-end EQUIPMENT 
structure, you restart the front-end, but the new setting does not take effect since the 
(old) ODB value took precedence. After some debugging you find out that you have to both 
change the EQUIPMENT structure (which defines the default value for a fresh ODB) and the 
ODB value itself.

So I changed it in the current develop tree that the front-end structure takes precedence. 
You still have a hot-link, so if you want to change anything while the front-end is running 
(like the readout period), you can do that in the ODB and it takes effect immediately. But 
when you start the front-end the next time, the value from the EQUIPMENT structure is 
taken again. So please be aware of this new feature.

Happy BC day,
Stefan

Hi Stefan,

This change does not sound like a good idea to me.  I think that this change will cause just as much confusion as before; probably more since you are changing established behaviour.

It is common that MIDAS frontends usually have a Settings directory in the ODB where details about the frontend behaviour are set.  The Settings directory might get initialized from strings in the frontend code, but after initialization the Settings in the ODB have precedence and define how the frontend will behave.  Indeed, most of my custom webpages are designed to control my frontend programs through their Settings ODB tree.

So you have created a situation where Frontend/Settings in the ODB has precedence and is the main place for changing frontend behaviour; but Frontend/Common in the ODB is essentially meaningless and will get overwritten the next time the frontend restarts.  That seems likely to confuse people. 

If you really want to make this change I suggest that you delete the Frontend/Common directory entirely; or make it read-only so that people aren't fooled into changing it.

Thomas 



> Today I fixed a long-annoying problem. We have in each front-end an equipment structure 
> which defined the event id, event type, readout frequency etc. This is mapped to the ODB 
> subtree
> 
> /Equipment/<name>/Common
> 
> In the past, the ODB setting took precedence over the frontend structure. We defined this 
> like 25 years ago and I forgot what the exact reason was. It causes however many people 
> (including myself) to fall into this trap: You change something in the front-end EQUIPMENT 
> structure, you restart the front-end, but the new setting does not take effect since the 
> (old) ODB value took precedence. After some debugging you find out that you have to both 
> change the EQUIPMENT structure (which defines the default value for a fresh ODB) and the 
> ODB value itself.
> 
> So I changed it in the current develop tree that the front-end structure takes precedence. 
> You still have a hot-link, so if you want to change anything while the front-end is running 
> (like the readout period), you can do that in the ODB and it takes effect immediately. But 
> when you start the front-end the next time, the value from the EQUIPMENT structure is 
> taken again. So please be aware of this new feature.
> 
> Happy BC day,
> Stefan

Hi Thomas,

the change only affects Eqipment/<name>/common not the Equipment/<name>/Settings. 

The Common subtree is still hot-linked into the frontend, so when running things can be changed if needed. This mainly concerns the readout period of periodic events. 
Sometimes you want to change this quickly without restarting the frontend. Changing the other settings are kind of dangerous. If you change the ID of an event on the fly
you won't be able to analyze your data. So having this read-only in the ODB might be a good idea (you still need it in the ODB for the status page), except for the values
you want to change (like the readout period). 

Let's see what other people have to say.

Stefan

> Hi Stefan,
> 
> This change does not sound like a good idea to me.  I think that this change will cause just as much confusion as before; probably more since you are changing established behaviour.
> 
> It is common that MIDAS frontends usually have a Settings directory in the ODB where details about the frontend behaviour are set.  The Settings directory might get initialized from strings in the frontend code, but after initialization the Settings in the ODB have precedence and define how the frontend will behave.  Indeed, most of my custom webpages are designed to control my frontend programs through their Settings ODB tree.
> 
> So you have created a situation where Frontend/Settings in the ODB has precedence and is the main place for changing frontend behaviour; but Frontend/Common in the ODB is essentially meaningless and will get overwritten the next time the frontend restarts.  That seems likely to confuse people. 
> 
> If you really want to make this change I suggest that you delete the Frontend/Common directory entirely; or make it read-only so that people aren't fooled into changing it.
> 
> Thomas 
> 
> 
> 
> > Today I fixed a long-annoying problem. We have in each front-end an equipment structure 
> > which defined the event id, event type, readout frequency etc. This is mapped to the ODB 
> > subtree
> > 
> > /Equipment/<name>/Common
> > 
> > In the past, the ODB setting took precedence over the frontend structure. We defined this 
> > like 25 years ago and I forgot what the exact reason was. It causes however many people 
> > (including myself) to fall into this trap: You change something in the front-end EQUIPMENT 
> > structure, you restart the front-end, but the new setting does not take effect since the 
> > (old) ODB value took precedence. After some debugging you find out that you have to both 
> > change the EQUIPMENT structure (which defines the default value for a fresh ODB) and the 
> > ODB value itself.
> > 
> > So I changed it in the current develop tree that the front-end structure takes precedence. 
> > You still have a hot-link, so if you want to change anything while the front-end is running 
> > (like the readout period), you can do that in the ODB and it takes effect immediately. But 
> > when you start the front-end the next time, the value from the EQUIPMENT structure is 
> > taken again. So please be aware of this new feature.
> > 
> > Happy BC day,
> > Stefan

After some internal discussion, I decided to undo my previous change again, in order not to break existing habits. Instead, I created a new function

set_odb_equipment_common(equipment, name);

which should be called from frontend_init() which explicitly copies all data from the equipment structure in the front-end into the ODB.

Stefan

> Today I fixed a long-annoying problem. ...
> /Equipment/<name>/Common
> In the past, the ODB setting took precedence over the frontend structure...
> We defined this like 25 years ago and I forgot what the exact reason was.
> It causes however many people (including myself) to fall into this trap: ...

There is good number of confusions regarding entries in /eq/xxx/common:

- for some of them, the frontend code settings take precedence and overwrite settings in odb ("frontend file name")
- for some of them, ODB takes precedence and frontend code values are ignored ("read on" and "period")
- for some of them, changes in ODB take effect immediately (via db_watch) ("period")
- for some of them, frontend restart is required for changes to take effect (output event buffer name "buffer")
- some of them continuously update the odb values ("status", "status color")

I do not think there is a simple way to improve on this.

(One solution would replace the single "common" with several subdirectories, "per function",
one would have items where the code takes precedence, one would have items where odb takes
precedence (in effect, "standard settings"), one will have items that the frontend always updates
and that should not be changes via odb ("frontend name", etc). I am not sure this one solution
is necessarily an "improvement").

Lacking any ideas for improvements, I vote for the status quo. (plus a review of the documentation to ensure we have clearly
written up what each entry in "common" does and whether the user is permitted to edit it in odb).

K.O.

> Lacking any ideas for improvements, I vote for the status quo. (plus a review of the documentation to ensure we have clearly
> written up what each entry in "common" does and whether the user is permitted to edit it in odb).

I agree with that.

Stefan

We had recently some problems at our experiment which I would like to share 
with the community. This affects however only experiments which have a slow 
control front-end in multi-threaded mode.

The problem is related with the fact that the midas API is not thread safe, so 
a device driver or bus driver from the slow control system may not call any ODB 
function. We found several drivers (mainly psi_separator.c, psi_beamline.c etc) 
which use inside read/write function the midas PAI function cm_msg() to report 
any error. While this is ok for the init section (which is executed in the main 
frontend thread) this is not ok for the read/write function inside the driver. 
If this is done anyhow, it can happen that the main thread locks the ODB (via 
db_lock_database()) and the thread interrupts that call and locks the ODB 
again. In rare cases this can cause a stale lock on the ODB. This blocks all 
other programs to access the ODB and the experiment will die loudly. It is hard 
to identify, since error messages cannot be produced any more, and remote 
programs (not affected by the lock) just show a rpc timeout.

I fixed all drivers now in our experiment which solved the problem for us, but 
I urge other people to double check their device drivers as well.

In case of problems, there is a thread ID check in 
db_lock_database()/db_unlock_database() which can be activated by supplying 

-DCHECK_THREAD_ID

in the compile command line. If then these functions are called from different 
threads, the program aborts with an assertion failure, which can then be 
debugged. 

There is also a stack history system implemented with new functions 
ss_stack_xxxx. Using this system, one can check which functions called 
db_lock_database() *before* an error occurs. Using this system, I identified 
the malicious drivers. Maybe this system can also be used in other error 
debugging scenarios.

Hello there, 
in our setup we use many variables with many different exceptions. Would it be possible to implement something like an 
IF or/and IF statement? I believe that this is currently not possible.
Best regards, 
Thomas Senger

The tinyexpr library I use to evaluate expressions does not support boolean operations. I would have to switch to the newer 
tineyexpr-plusplus version, which also has much richer functionality:

https://github.com/Blake-Madden/tinyexpr-plusplus/blob/tinyexpr%2B%2B/TinyExprChanges.md

Unfortunately it requires C++17, and at the moment we limit MIDAS to C++11, meaning we would break this requirement. I 
believe at the moment there are still some experiments (mainly at TRIUMF) which are stuck to older OS and therefore cannot 
switch to C++17, but hopefully this will change over time.

Stefan

For our MIDAS installation at Fermilab, it is necessary that we be able to write to a PosgresQL 
database (MySQL is not supported here). This will be required of both mlogger and mscb. 

Has anyone done this before? And do you know of a relatively simple way of implementing it, or do 
we need to replicate the mysql functions that are already in the mlogger/mscb code to add functions 
that perform the equivalent Posgres commands?

Thanks!
Wes

> For our MIDAS installation at Fermilab, it is necessary that we be able to write to a PosgresQL 
> database (MySQL is not supported here). This will be required of both mlogger and mscb. 
> 
> Has anyone done this before? And do you know of a relatively simple way of implementing it, or do 
> we need to replicate the mysql functions that are already in the mlogger/mscb code to add functions 
> that perform the equivalent Posgres commands?
> 
> Thanks!
> Wes

Hi Wes

I did this a few years ago, and replicated the mysql functions within mlogger. 

Lee

Good morning, 

In our setup, we have a neutron detector that creates up to 16 MB of polled (EQ_POLLED) data in one event (event limit = 1) that we do not want to have saved into the ODB. Nevertheless, I cannot disable it. The equipment has only the read-on-flag RO_RUNNING, and the read-on value in the ODB is 1. The data are also not saved to the history. I also tried with a minimal example frontend with the same settings, but also those "data" get written to the ODB. For now, I increased the size of the ODB to 40 MB (50% for keys and 50% for data is automatic), but in principle, I do not want it to be saved to the ODB at all. Is there something I am missing?

Thanks in advance for your advice. 

Cheers,
Ivo

I cannot confirm that. I just tried myself with examples/experiment/frontend.cxx, removed the RO_ODB, and the trigger events did NOT get copied to the ODB.

Actually you can debug the code yourself. The relevant line is in mfe.cxx:2075:

   /* send event to ODB */
   if (pevent->data_size && (eq_info->read_on & RO_ODB)) {
      if (actual_millitime - eq->last_called > ODB_UPDATE_TIME) {
         eq->last_called = actual_millitime;
         update_odb(pevent, eq->hkey_variables, eq->format);
         eq->odb_out++;
      }
   }

so if read_on is equal 1, the function update_odb should never be called.

So the problem must be on your side.

Best,
Stefan

Dear all,

there are continuing requests about the C indent style we use in midas. As 
you know, the current style does not comply with any standard. It is even 
a mixture of styles since code comes from different people. To fix this 
once and forever, I am considering using the "indent" program which comes 
with every linux installation. Running indent regularly on all our code 
ensures a consistent look. So I propose (actually the idea came from Paul 
Knowles) to put a new section in the midas makefile:

indent:
        find . -name "*.[hc]" -exec indent <flags> {} \;

so one can easily do a "make indent". The question is now how the <flags> 
should look like. The standard is GNU style, but this deviates from the 
original K&R style such that the opening "{" is put on a new line, which I 
use but most of you do not. The "-kr" style does the standard K&R style, 
but used tabs (which is not good), and does a 4-column indention which is 
I think too much. So I would propose following flags:

indent -kr -nut -i2 -di8 -bad <filename.c>

Please take some of your source code, and format it this way, and let me 
know if these flags are a good combination or if you would like to have 
anything changed. It should also be checked (->PAA) that this style 
complies with the DOC++ system. Once we all agree, I can put it into the 
makefile, execute it and commit the newly formatted code for the whole 
source tree.

Hi Stefan,

> once and forever, I am considering using the "indent" program which comes 
> with every linux installation. Running indent regularly on all our code 
> ensures a consistent look.

I think this can be called a Good Thing.

> The "-kr" style does the standard K&R style, 
> but used tabs (which is not good), and does a 4-column 
> indention which is I think too much. So I would propose 
> following flags:
>        indent -kr -nut -i2 -di8 -bad <filename.c>

(some of this is a repeat from an earlier mail to SR):
You might also want a -l90 for a longer line length than 75
characters.  K&R style with indentation from 5 to 8 spaces
is a good indicator of complexity: as soon as 40 characters
of code wind up unreadably squashed to the right of the
screen, you have to refactor to have less indentation
levels.  This means you wind up rolling up the inner parts
of deeply nested conditionals or loops as separate
functions, making the whole code easier to understand.

I think that setting -i2 is ``going around the problem'' 
of deep nesting.  If you really need to keep the indentation 
tabs less than 4 (8 is ideal) because your code is falling off the 
right edge of the screen, you are indented too deeply.  Why do 
I say that?  There is the famous ``7+-1'' idea that you can hold
in you head only 7 ideas (give or take one) at any time.  I'm not 
that smart and I top out at about 5:  So for example, a conditional 
in a loop  in a conditional in a switch is about as deep a level 
of nesting as  I can easily understand (remember that I also have 
to hold the line i'm working on as well): that's 4 levels, plus one for the
function itself and we are at 40 characters away from the right edge
of the screen using -i8 and have some 40 characters available for writing code
(how often is a line of code really longer than about 40 characters?).
On top of that, the indentation is easily seen so you know immediately 
wheather you are at the upper conditional, or inner conditional.  A -i2
just doesn't make the difference big enough.  -i5 is a happy balance 
with enough visual clue as to the indentation level, but leaves you 50
to 60 characters for the code line itself.

However, if you are indenting very deeply, then the poor reader can't hold
on to the context: there are more than 6 or 7 things to keep in mind.
In those cases, roll up the inner levels as a separate function and 
call it that way. The inner complexity of the nested statements gets 
nicely abstracted and then dumb people like me can understand what 
you are doing.

So, in brief: indent is a good idea, and -in with n>=4 will be best.
I don't think -i2 will lend itself to making the code so much easier 
to read.

thanks for listening.
.p.