Good afternoon,

After updating Midas to the latest develop commit 
(0f5436d901a1dfaf6da2b94e2d87f870e3611cf1) we found out a bug when starting 
sequencer. If we have a simple loop from start value to stop value and step 
size, just printing the value at each iteration, we see everything good (see 
first attachment). Then we included another script though, which contains 
several subroutines we defined for our detector, and we try to run the same 
script. Unfortunately after this the parameters seem uninitialized, and the 
value at each loop does not make sense (see second attachment). Also, sometimes 
when pressing run the set parameter window would pop-up, but sometimes not.

The script is this one:

>>>
COMMENT Test script to check for a specific bug

INCLUDE global_basic_functions

#CALL setup_paths
#CALL generate_DUT_params

PARAM lv_start, "Start of LV", 1.8
PARAM lv_stop, "Stop of LV", 2.1
PARAM lv_step, "Step of LV", 0.02

n_iterations = (($lv_stop - $lv_start)/$lv_step)

MSG "Parameters:"
MSG $lv_start
MSG $lv_stop
MSG $lv_step
MSG $n_iterations

MSG "Start of looping"

LOOP n, $n_iterations
   lv_now = $lv_start + $n * $lv_step
   MSG $lv_now
   WAIT SECONDS, 1
ENDLOOP
<<<

and the only difference comes from commenting the line:

>>>
INCLUDE global_basic_functions
<<<

as global_basic_functions is defined as a LIBRARY and it includes 75 (!) 
subroutines...

Is it possible that when loading a large script it messes up the loading of 
parameters?

Thank you very much,
Regards,
Luigi.

Could you please export and send me the /Sequencer ODB tree (or just /Sequencer/Param and /Sequencer/Variables) in both cases while the sequence is running. 

thanks,
Zaher


> Good afternoon,
> 
> After updating Midas to the latest develop commit 
> (0f5436d901a1dfaf6da2b94e2d87f870e3611cf1) we found out a bug when starting 
> sequencer. If we have a simple loop from start value to stop value and step 
> size, just printing the value at each iteration, we see everything good (see 
> first attachment). Then we included another script though, which contains 
> several subroutines we defined for our detector, and we try to run the same 
> script. Unfortunately after this the parameters seem uninitialized, and the 
> value at each loop does not make sense (see second attachment). Also, sometimes 
> when pressing run the set parameter window would pop-up, but sometimes not.
> 
> The script is this one:
> 
> >>>
> COMMENT Test script to check for a specific bug
> 
> INCLUDE global_basic_functions
> 
> #CALL setup_paths
> #CALL generate_DUT_params
> 
> PARAM lv_start, "Start of LV", 1.8
> PARAM lv_stop, "Stop of LV", 2.1
> PARAM lv_step, "Step of LV", 0.02
> 
> n_iterations = (($lv_stop - $lv_start)/$lv_step)
> 
> MSG "Parameters:"
> MSG $lv_start
> MSG $lv_stop
> MSG $lv_step
> MSG $n_iterations
> 
> MSG "Start of looping"
> 
> LOOP n, $n_iterations
>    lv_now = $lv_start + $n * $lv_step
>    MSG $lv_now
>    WAIT SECONDS, 1
> ENDLOOP
> <<<
> 
> and the only difference comes from commenting the line:
> 
> >>>
> INCLUDE global_basic_functions
> <<<
> 
> as global_basic_functions is defined as a LIBRARY and it includes 75 (!) 
> subroutines...
> 
> Is it possible that when loading a large script it messes up the loading of 
> parameters?
> 
> Thank you very much,
> Regards,
> Luigi.

Ok, here is the complete code to reproduce the problem. Load parameter_test.msl which includes functions.msl. From the screenshot you see the variables containing 
garbage, and you also see that from the ODB screenshot. For completeness, I added Sequencer.json which contains the whole sequencer tree.

The interesting thing is that this works sometimes, and sometimes not. I'm not sure if this in the GUI or in the sequencer program, so we have to sort out who can 
fix it ;-)

Best,
Stefan

It is pretty much the same as Stefan, I attach here the screenshots. Also in my case it works sometimes, and sometimes partially (one or 2 params, like in 
attachment 3).

> Could you please export and send me the /Sequencer ODB tree (or just /Sequencer/Param and /Sequencer/Variables) in both cases while the sequence is running. 
> 
> thanks,
> Zaher
> 
> 
> > Good afternoon,
> > 
> > After updating Midas to the latest develop commit 
> > (0f5436d901a1dfaf6da2b94e2d87f870e3611cf1) we found out a bug when starting 
> > sequencer. If we have a simple loop from start value to stop value and step 
> > size, just printing the value at each iteration, we see everything good (see 
> > first attachment). Then we included another script though, which contains 
> > several subroutines we defined for our detector, and we try to run the same 
> > script. Unfortunately after this the parameters seem uninitialized, and the 
> > value at each loop does not make sense (see second attachment). Also, sometimes 
> > when pressing run the set parameter window would pop-up, but sometimes not.
> > 
> > The script is this one:
> > 
> > >>>
> > COMMENT Test script to check for a specific bug
> > 
> > INCLUDE global_basic_functions
> > 
> > #CALL setup_paths
> > #CALL generate_DUT_params
> > 
> > PARAM lv_start, "Start of LV", 1.8
> > PARAM lv_stop, "Stop of LV", 2.1
> > PARAM lv_step, "Step of LV", 0.02
> > 
> > n_iterations = (($lv_stop - $lv_start)/$lv_step)
> > 
> > MSG "Parameters:"
> > MSG $lv_start
> > MSG $lv_stop
> > MSG $lv_step
> > MSG $n_iterations
> > 
> > MSG "Start of looping"
> > 
> > LOOP n, $n_iterations
> >    lv_now = $lv_start + $n * $lv_step
> >    MSG $lv_now
> >    WAIT SECONDS, 1
> > ENDLOOP
> > <<<
> > 
> > and the only difference comes from commenting the line:
> > 
> > >>>
> > INCLUDE global_basic_functions
> > <<<
> > 
> > as global_basic_functions is defined as a LIBRARY and it includes 75 (!) 
> > subroutines...
> > 
> > Is it possible that when loading a large script it messes up the loading of 
> > parameters?
> > 
> > Thank you very much,
> > Regards,
> > Luigi.

I have been able to reproduce the problem only once. From what I see, it seems that the Variables ODB tree is not initialized properly from the Param tree. Below are the messages from the failed run compared to a successful one. As far as I could see, the javascript code does not change anything in the Variables ODB tree (only monitors it). The actual changes are done by the sequencer program, or am I wrong?

Failed run:
16:14:25.849 2024/05/03 [Sequencer,INFO]  + 3 * 
16:14:24.722 2024/05/03 [Sequencer,INFO]  + 2 * 
16:14:23.594 2024/05/03 [Sequencer,INFO]  + 1 * 
16:14:23.592 2024/05/03 [Sequencer,INFO] Start of looping
16:14:23.591 2024/05/03 [Sequencer,INFO] (( - )/)
16:14:23.591 2024/05/03 [Sequencer,INFO] 
16:14:23.590 2024/05/03 [Sequencer,INFO] 
16:14:23.590 2024/05/03 [Sequencer,INFO] 
16:14:23.589 2024/05/03 [Sequencer,INFO] Parameters:
16:14:23.562 2024/05/03 [Sequencer,TALK] Sequencer started with script "testpars.msl".


Successful run:
16:15:37.472 2024/05/03 [Sequencer,INFO] 1.820000
16:15:37.471 2024/05/03 [Sequencer,INFO] Start of looping
16:15:37.471 2024/05/03 [Sequencer,INFO] 15
16:15:37.470 2024/05/03 [Sequencer,INFO] 0.020000
16:15:37.470 2024/05/03 [Sequencer,INFO] 2.100000
16:15:37.469 2024/05/03 [Sequencer,INFO] 1.800000
16:15:37.469 2024/05/03 [Sequencer,INFO] Parameters:
16:15:37.450 2024/05/03 [Sequencer,TALK] Sequencer started with script "testpars.msl".

Ahh, that rings a bell:

1) JS opens start dialog box
2) User enters parameters and presses start
3) JS writes parameters
4) JS starts sequencer
5) Sequencer copies parameters to variables

Now how do you handle 3) and 4). Just issue two mjsonrpc commands together? What then could happen is that 4) is executed before 3) and we get the garbage.
You have to do 3) and WAIT for the return ("then" in the JS promise), and only then issue 4) from there.

Stefan

Thanks for the hint Stefan. I pushed a possible fix but I cannot test it since I cannot reproduce the issue.

> Ahh, that rings a bell:
> 
> 1) JS opens start dialog box
> 2) User enters parameters and presses start
> 3) JS writes parameters
> 4) JS starts sequencer
> 5) Sequencer copies parameters to variables
> 
> Now how do you handle 3) and 4). Just issue two mjsonrpc commands together? What then could happen is that 4) is executed before 3) and we get the garbage.
> You have to do 3) and WAIT for the return ("then" in the JS promise), and only then issue 4) from there.
> 
> Stefan

Seems to me like the problem happens less frequently, but I still see it (1 out of 5 or so). The fact that /Sequencer/Params/Value is empty tells me that the GUI 
has the problem and not the sequencer side.

Stefan

[quote="Zaher Salman"]I think that I finally managed to fix the problem. The default values of the parameters are now written first in one go, then the sequencer waits for confirmation that everything is completed before proceeding. Please test and let me know if there are still any issues. Zaher [/quote]