pcdshub / pcdshub/engineering_tools
MNT: assess if value user checks should happen for all daq operations
Nobody has claimed this yet.
- Dominant language
- Python
- Stars
- 5
- Forks
- 36
- Avg merge
- 2d 17h
- Merged PRs (30d)
- 3
Description
Raised during review of #203
the check is only in restartdaq as people who start the DAQ may modify the configuration database and we wanted to make sure that some beamline scientists umask did not make the DAQ unusable for the next person on shift. This is not a problem for the new daq as far as I can see.
We should think about where we need these checks, but to roll this our before SC beam this may need to end up as a item for future review (like argpase versus getopt)
Originally posted by @silkenelson in https://github.com/pcdshub/engineering_tools/pull/203#discussion_r1779036633
Contributor guide
No contributing guide indexed for this repository
First steps
- Read the whole issue, then the project's contributing guide.
- Comment on the issue to say you are picking it up — it saves two people doing the same work.
- Fork the repository and make your change on a branch.
- Open a pull request that references the issue number.
Research direction
Start by reviewing the discussion in #203 and the existing check in restartdaq, then compare it with the other DAQ operations and the new DAQ behavior described here. Determine which operations need value-user checks and record the decision, including whether the remaining work is deferred for future review.
Written by the indexing model from the issue text.
Assessment
- Tech stack
- python
- Domain
- tooling
- Issue type
- Refactor
- Difficulty
- 5/5
- Estimated time
- Over a week
- Activity status
- Stale
- Clarity
- Needs clarification
- Newbie friendliness
- 25/100