Roald has written an excellent guide for the Twincat Eventlogger.
https://roald87.github.io/twincat/2020/11/03/twincat-eventlogger-plc-part.html
https://roald87.github.io/twincat/2021/01/20/twincat-eventlogger-hmi-part.html
For us this is exactly what we want, there is however 1 thing I haven't figured out. How to get the sourcename of the alarm in multiple languages in the HMI. params::sourceName gives the path in the software (example: MAIN.fbConveyor1.Cylinder1) This path can be customized when initializing the alarm (as Roald has shown). This doesn't work in my case, since I would like to define a generic alarm (example: "Cilinder not retracted within maximum time") that is instantiated multiple times.
I was thinking of using the source as a way to show the operator where the alarm occurs. We use this way (path) already for saving machine settings among other things. The machines we build are installed all over the world, so multilanguage is a must.
Beckhoff does support multilanguage alarm names (when defined), but the source is not defined, but dynamically generated.
Anyone have an idea how this problem can be solved?
If I understand your question correctly, then being able to parameterize the event text with information of the source of the problem should help you out.
If you define the event text as Cylinder {0} has not retracted in time. then you can add the arguments of that text during runtime.
IF bRaiseAlarm THEN
bRaiseAlarm := FALSE;
fbAlarm.ipArguments.Clear().AddString('Alice');
fbAlarm.Raise(0);
END_IF
However, since this also stated in the articles you mentioned, I am unsure if this would solve your problem.
'Alice' in this example, can be hard to localize. The following options come to my mind.
The string can be based on an ENUM. Enums can have textlist support, so if you add your translations there, that should allow multilingual output. However... this does require a lot of setup, placing translations inside your code, and making sure the PLC application is aware of the language that the parameter should use.
Use tags to mark the source device, as tags can be language invariant. It is not the most user-friendly method, but it could work for you. It would become something like: "Cylinder 'AA.1123' did not retract in time.". 'AA.1123' as a tag would have to be stored inside your PLC code as a string. You will have to trust that your operator can relate the tag back to the actual source.
Hopefully, this helped, or else please help me understand the problem better.
Related
Not really critical question, but i'm curious
I am working on a form and sometimes the generated function name is /1BCDWB/SF00000473, and sometimes /1BCDWB/SF00000472. This goes back and forth.
Does anyone know what's the idea behind this? Cuz i'm quite sure it's not a bug (or i might be wrong on that).
It is not a bug. You always have to use SSF_FUNCTION_MODULE_NAME to determine the actual function module name and call it dynamically using CALL FUNCTION l_function_module.
Smartform FMs are tracked by internal numbering and thats saved in the table STXFADMI. You would always notice the different number in Development System if you have deleted any existing Form. Similarly, you would also notice the different number in your Quality system based on the sequence the forms are imported in QAS and the forms as well (as test forms are not migrated to QAS.
Similar behavior is also true for Adobe Form generated FMs.
You need to understand that every smartform has a different interface and hence the automatically generated function module needs to have different import parameters.
Due to this reason the 'SSF*' FMs generate a FM specific for your smartform. The name of the 'generated' FM changes when you migrate from one system to another. And that's the reason why you should use a variable while calling the 'generated' fm and not hardcode it.
The same goes with Adobe form as someone has rightly said in this thread.
I have a custom node type for which I want to have a field that uses a special combobox based on list_text. When one chooses the type list_text it is normally possible to enter a static list of selectable texts, however, I want this list to be dynamic, i.e. based on the results of a db_query. What is the best way to do this using Drupal 7?
A simple example for clarification: A node of this custom type X contains a field that points to another node, so whenever a node of type X is created I want a combobox that contains all other nodes.
(Best solution would be to only display the combobox during node creation, and no longer during edit. But I could also live with it if the combobox was shown during the edit as well.)
I have tried to customize options_select by defining my own data type and implementing hook_options_list accordingly. The combobox was displayed during creation with the correct values, however, I could not save it.. I have no idea what went wrong there, but on the first submit it would change to a different theme, and when I tried again I got an internal server error. Am I on the right track at all with defining a completely new data type for the field? there surely must be a simpler way?
You're right in that you don't need a new datatype. Here's a good tutorial on how to do this. It's not specifically for D7 but I didn't see much that wasn't still applicable. There may be a better way to do it in D7 specifically but I would love to know it too if so :)
The tutorial linked by allegroconmolto sent me on the right way. Thanks for that.
Here's the simpler way of doing it: tutorial
Basically, it is, as I assumed, a common problem and hence a simple solution for it was included in the webform module by now. It provides a hook_webform_select_options_info which can be used to register a callback method. The callback method is then called each time a corresponding option select of a webform is shown, so that you can easily fill it with the results of a dbquery or anything else. Works like a charm and takes next to no time to implement.
Do you use table-of-contents for listing all the functions (and maybe variables) of a class in the beginning of big source code file? I know that alternative to that kind of listing would be to split up big files into smaller classes/files, so that their class declaration would be self-explanatory enough.. but some complex tasks require a lot of code. I'm not sure is it really worth it spending your time subdividing implementation into multiple of files? Or is it ok to create an index-listing additionally to the class/interface declaration?
EDIT:
To better illustrate how I use table-of-contents this is an example from my hobby project. It's actually not listing functions, but code blocks inside a function.. but you can probably get the idea anyway..
/*
CONTENTS
Order_mouse_from_to_points
Lines_intersecting_with_upper_point
Lines_intersecting_with_both_points
Lines_not_intersecting
Lines_intersecting_bottom_points
Update_intersection_range_indices
Rough_method
Normal_method
First_selected_item
Last_selected_item
Other_selected_item
*/
void SelectionManager::FindSelection()
{
// Order_mouse_from_to_points
...
// Lines_intersecting_with_upper_point
...
// Lines_intersecting_with_both_points
...
// Lines_not_intersecting
...
// Lines_intersecting_bottom_points
...
// Update_intersection_range_indices
for(...)
{
// Rough_method
....
// Normal_method
if(...)
{
// First_selected_item
...
// Last_selected_item
...
// Other_selected_item
...
}
}
}
Notice that index-items don't have spaces. Because of this I can click on one them and press F4 to jump to the item-usage, and F2 to jump back (simple visual studio find-next/prevous-shortcuts).
EDIT:
Another alternative solution to this indexing is using collapsed c# regions. You can configure visual studio to show only region names and hide all the code. Of course keyboard support for that source code navigation is pretty cumbersome...
I know that alternative to that kind of listing would be to split up big files into smaller classes/files, so that their class declaration would be self-explanatory enough.
Correct.
but some complex tasks require a lot of code
Incorrect. While a "lot" of code be required, long runs of code (over 25 lines) are a really bad idea.
actually not listing functions, but code blocks inside a function
Worse. A function that needs a table of contents must be decomposed into smaller functions.
I'm not sure is it really worth it spending your time subdividing implementation into multiple of files?
It is absolutely mandatory that you split things into smaller files. The folks that maintain, adapt and reuse your code need all the help they can get.
is it ok to create an index-listing additionally to the class/interface declaration?
No.
If you have to resort to this kind of trick, it's too big.
Also, many languages have tools to generate API docs from the code. Java, Python, C, C++ have documentation tools. Even with Javadoc, epydoc or Doxygen you still have to design things so that they are broken into intellectually manageable pieces.
Make things simpler.
Use a tool to create an index.
If you create a big index you'll have to maintain it as you change your code. Most modern IDEs create list of class members anyway. it seems like a waste of time to create such index.
I would never ever do this sort of busy-work in my code. The most I would do manually is insert a few lines at the top of the file/class explaining what this module did and how it is intended to be used.
If a list of methods and their interfaces would be useful, I generate them automatically, through a tool such as Doxygen.
I've done things like this. Not whole tables of contents, but a similar principle -- just ad-hoc links between comments and the exact piece of code in question. Also to link pieces of code that make the same simplifying assumptions that I suspect may need fixing up later.
You can use Visual Studio's task list to get a listing of certain types of comment. The format of the comments can be configured in Tools|Options, Environment\Task List. This isn't something I ended up using myself but it looks like it might help with navigating the code if you use this system a lot.
If you can split your method like that, you should probably write more methods. After this is done, you can use an IDE to give you the static call stack from the initial method.
EDIT: You can use Eclipse's 'Show Call Hierarchy' feature while programming.
Some of the developers on the project I work on have a habit of commenting their code to show which version of the product it was added for, e.g.
// added for superEnterpriseyWonder v2.5
string superMappingTag = MakeTag(extras);
if (superMappingTag.empty())
{
autoMapping = false;
}
// end added for superEnterpriseyWonder v2.5
Whenever I see this my blood pressure rises, and I have to spend 5 minutes browsing SO to cool off. It seems to me that they don't understand version control and if I were to use this practice too every other line in the source files would be a comment about when things were added. I'm considering removing all such comments from files that I work on, but am wondering is it just me being picky and is there actually some value to these comments?
If you're using Source Control then I would advocate adding a build label to Source Control after every build. That way you can search for all source modified for a specific build, with no nasty comments clogging your code.
This from Clean Code, a book by Bob Martin:
"The proper use of comments is to
compensate for our failure to express
ourself in code. Note that I used the
word failure. I meant it. Comments are
always failures."
I always think of that quote when I see a comment so I'm not suprised your blood boils.
No value whatsoever. If you have a blame tool in your version control this will achieve this, they just add noise.
Whats worse is they will attract further comments to your code to make it completely unreadable
// added for superEnterpriseyWonder v2.5
string superMappingTag = MakeTag(extras);
if (superMappingTag.empty())
{
// bug fix #12345674 shuld have been true
autoMapping = true;
// bug fix #12345674 should have been true
i++; // v2.6 now need to up the counter DO NOT DELETE
}
// end added for superEnterpriseyWonder v2.5
and then someone will delete the method but leave the code comment in
// added for superEnterpriseyWonder v2.5
// bug fix #12345674 should have been true
// v2.6 now need to up the counter DO NOT DELETE
// end added for superEnterpriseyWonder v2.5
Just say no to crappy comments
I'd say there's no value: This info can also be retrieved with your SCM's annotate/blame functionality. Also, anyone can add text between these comments, which make the comments dated (since you might add something for v2.6 while the comments say v2.5)
Another thing to note is that these comments are essentially hidden: You only see them when you are looking at the source code in question, so you can't use it to generate a changelog or something.
The comment as shown, is probably not to useful. However, there may be times that adding a feature may cause the addition of not so obvious code. In which case, a comment describing the change and/or why it the code is not obvious would be appropriate.
Not only is there no value here...there's negative value. Maintenance of comments is already sketchy in most places, this just adds another thing for people to screw with. These comments have no value to the reader and are therefore clogging their brain up with useless version information when they could have another line of code in their memory. It's also another line to have a merge conflict on (totally not joking here..I've seen merge conflicts on comments).
Could be useful in some cases (e.g. if this helps to understand why some function works differently in V3 than in V2) but in general, it's the job of the SCM to know what has been added when.
You are not picky IMHO. There are at least three good reasons not to add this type of comment in source code:
their place is actually in a Version Control System, where you can have a global view of everything that has changed to accommodate a new version of a library or a new feature. Provided it is done correctly and the logs are used.
if the source code is part of the deliverables to clients, maybe they don't need to know the history of what happened. Imagine you have done a modification for another client, and put that in comments!
too many comments are no better than too few.
The line is not clear though, what would be the difference between
// Compliance with specs abc (additional xyz feature)
...
... // some code
and:
// xyz feature:
...
... // some code
In general terms, I would not put anything that is related to the history in the source code, but stick to commenting what is done, how it is done, so that someone else can easily browse through the code and understand it.
My advice: have a methodology document written, or an informal discussion.
If seeing a superfluos comment makes your blood pressure rise, you need to take up drinking or something.
That said, I agree that such comments are mostly useless. If used consistently, the program would quickly become a maze of such comments. What if a line is changed once for version 2.5 and then a year later changed again for bug 3294? Do you put two "version" comments on the same line, or just keep the latest? If you only keep the latest, then you've lost the fact that this was originally added for 2.5. If you keep them both, what happens when there's a third change or a fourth? How do we know what the state was at each change? What happens when you add a block of code in version 2.5, and then for version 2.6 you add another block of code embedded within the 2.5 block? Etc etc. The program could easily end up having more version comments than lines of code.
If not done consistently, the comments would quickly become misleading. Someone could put a comment saying this block was added for 2.5, someone else could insert code inside that block for version 2.6 and not comment it, and now we have a comment that seems to say that the second block was added for 2.5.
And do we care that much? It's pretty rare that I care when a change was made. Oh, okay a couple of weeks ago I cared because I wanted to know who to blame for a major screw up.
As others have pointed out, version control systems do this for you on the rare occasions when you need it. I guess if you didn't have any sort of VCS, a case could be made for doing this. But you can get some very nice VCSs for free. If you need one, get one. Otherwise you're like the people who say that you should practice doing arithmetic in your head because otherwise what would you do if your calculator quit working. The assumption apparently being that at any moment, all the calculators in the world might simultaneously break.
You might say that it can help to be able to say, "Ohhhh, this was added to order entry to support the new salesman timecard function" or some such. But then the important this is not "This code was changed by Bob for version 3.2.4", but rather, "This code produces this data which isn't used here but is needed by another module over there".
I am a firm believer in writing comments that introduce sections of code and describe the general idea behind complex or otherwise non-obvious code. But that's an entirely different thing.
Consider that some may have to grab snapshots from the VCS. In that case, they don't have history to fall back on .. and such comments become useful.
I saw that a lot in code written by people that didn't use version control until recently. I guess they just took the habit and now it's hard to stop.
Another reason I found was that sometime it is important to know what piece of code is associated with what version. Of course you can always check the version log, but you don't always have time for that, and it's annoying. In some cases saying "code for v3.2" speaks more to other developers than "code to do x, y and z"... it all depends on the conventions established by the team.
Another answer is that in some projects I worked with some code was commented like that, but it was before the project actually started using version control. In that case it also made sense to keep it that way.
I find them useful, it saves chasing through the VCS to find out why a change was made to the code, or to find the BugId for a defect, given I remember what the code change was.
Although in theory the VCS contains the information, in practice it can get buried, particularly by integrations.
In other works which is easier:
// DEF43562 - changed default value
foobar = true
Or
blame(or equiv)
chase through
history to find the correct change.
Follow integration to source, and
repeat 1&2.
Find bug id attached
to original change, if you are
lucky.
Basically the comment is a short-cut around the VCS, and flaky VCS/BugTracking integration.
I find that the comments are also useful as a marker for: "This decision has been reviewed by customers/users/review committee, and this is the selected answer, be careful about changing the behaviour".
What is a good strategy for dealing with changing product and feature names in source code. Here's the situation I find myself in over and over again (most of you can relate?)...
Product name starts off as "DaBomb"
Major features are "Exploder", "Lantern" and "Flag".
Time passes, and the Feature names are changed to "Boom", "Lighthouse" and "MarkMan"
Time passes, and the product name changes to "DaChronic"
...
...
Blah, blah, blah...over and over and over
And now we have a large code base with 50 different names sprinkled around the directory tree and source files, most of which are obsolete. Only the veterans remember what each name means, the full etimologic history, etc.
What is the solution to this mess?
Clarification: I don't mean the names that customers see, I mean the names of directories, source files, classes, variables, etc. that the developers see where the changing product and feature names get woven into.
Given your clarification that you "don't mean the names that customers see, [you] mean the names of directories, source files, classes, variables, etc. that the developers see", yeah, this can be an annoying problem.
The way teams I've been on have coped with best when we've had a policy of always using only one name for each thing in the code base. If the name changes later on we either stay with the old name in the code, or we migrate all instances of the old name to the new name. The important thing is to never start using the new name in the code unless all instance of the old name have been migrated. That way you only ever have to keep 2 names for something in your head: the "old name", used in the code, and the name everyone else uses.
We've also often chosen a very generic/descriptive name for things when starting out if we know the "brand name" is likely to change.
I consider renaming to better naming conventions just another form of refactoring. Create a branch, perform the renames, run unit/integration tests, commit, merge, repeat. It's all about process control to keep consistency in the project.
The solution to the mess is to not create it in the first place. Once a code path is named, there's rarely a good reason to change it and never a good reason to use a new name alongside the old one. When "Exploder" becomes "Boom", you have two choices: Either keep using Exploder exclusively, and never mention Boom anywhere, or change all instances of Exploder to Boom and then continue on using Boom exclusively and never mention Exploder again.
If you're using both Exploder and Boom in the same code base, you're doing it wrong.
Also, I know you clarified that you're not talking about the user-visible names, but, if you start out working with your own internal names which are relevant to what the code does and completely independent of what marketing wants to call the product/feature, then this is much less likely to become an issue. If you're already referring to Exploder internally as TNT, then what difference does it make if Exploder gets changed to Boom?
How do you deal with Localization? Same thing; same method.
We use an internal and and external name. It could be as simple as a static variable definition like
public static final String EXPLODER = "Boom";
And in code you'll always use the reference to EXPLODER. Same for path names and the like - hard coding those paths at different places is a no-go anyway. If some guys starts digging through internal stuff (like JS sources or ini files or whatever), who cares if they discover Exploder?
Just use internal names, and ignore changes to marketing/official names: https://softwareengineering.stackexchange.com/a/208578/55472.