Add support for loading DCF configuration to remote node #427
Conversation
canopen/node/remote.py
Outdated
| for obj in self.object_dictionary.values(): | ||
| if isinstance(obj, ODRecord) or isinstance(obj, ODArray): | ||
| if "PDO" in obj.name: |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Perhaps it is more safe to use the indices rather than the name?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Do you mean explicitly ignoring objects with indices within supported PDO ranges, i.e: 0x1400 <= obj.index < 0x1C00 ?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Yes exactly. I'm thinking using names might yield both false positives and false negatives.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Thanks that makes sense.
I've also removed excluding objects with "COB-ID" keyword. They are being applied OK by __load_configuration_helper() and would have been incorrectly ignored in previous commit.
meifonglow
force-pushed
the
pr-load-dcf-config-to-remote-node
branch
2 times, most recently
from
c406d3e
to
b9534aa
Compare
canopen/node/remote.py
Outdated
| if isinstance(obj, ODRecord) or isinstance(obj, ODArray): | ||
| if 0x1400 <= obj.index < 0x1c00: | ||
| # Ignore PDO related objects | ||
| logger.debug(f"{obj.index:#06x}: {obj.name} already applied by pdo.save()") |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
| logger.debug(f"{obj.index:#06x}: {obj.name} already applied by pdo.save()") | |
| logger.debug("0x%04X: %s already applied by pdo.save()", obj.index, obj.name) |
See #443. Do we really need this much debug logging though?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Agree, it is something that would be logged every time so it may not add much value.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Fair enough. Removing.
canopen/node/remote.py
Outdated
| if isinstance(obj, ODRecord) or isinstance(obj, ODArray): | ||
| if 0x1400 <= obj.index < 0x1c00: | ||
| # Ignore PDO related objects | ||
| logger.debug(f"{obj.index:#06x}: {obj.name} already applied by pdo.save()") |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Fair enough. Removing.
meifonglow
force-pushed
the
pr-load-dcf-config-to-remote-node
branch
from
8bc8bbc
to
a18acac
Compare
As part of instrument commissioning process, I want to apply the configuration values stored in a DCF to a remote node, including PDO mapping and communications parameters. If a value was not specified, then the EDS default value is used instead.
This commit provides this capability.
Potentially addresses #274.