Instance Datablocks declarations are now read from the Function Block #72
Conversation
…. This is to make the behaviour consitent with Step7. Also added Some comments to the Code
| @@ -323,8 +319,9 @@ private tmpBlock GetBlockBytes(ProjectBlockInfo blkInfo) | |||
| { | |||
| //DB Structure in Plain Text (Structure and StartValues!) | |||
| if (mc5code != null) | |||
| myTmpBlk.blkinterface = | |||
| Project.ProjectEncoding.GetString(mc5code); | |||
| if (!myTmpBlk.IsInstanceDB ) //only take interface if the block is not an instance DB. If it is, then reather take the interface from the FB declaration | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Do not overwrite the DB declartion if it was already obtained from the Function Block
| //The reason is that if you change the comment in an FB, the DB data is not actualized and my contain outdated | ||
| //Declarations. When you change the interface, Step7 tells you to "regenerate" the instance DB which only then would | ||
| //Actualize the comments. Simple Commentary changes do not change the Datablocks row. | ||
| tmpBlock InstFB = GetBlockBytes("FB" + myTmpBlk.FBNumber); |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Read the Declaration from the Function block, and overwrite the one read from the S7 Project files
|
no, I did not test with actual values. Did not think about this. I will look into this later this week, when i have some time. |
|
Maybe we can make it like this: by default use the FB interface, except explicitly chosen from the options (same as Step7). And if there is a Mismatch in the declaration (structure, not symbols or comments) between the FB and the DB, then use the DB. |
|
It's ok for me if we do it so. But before merge we should check if/how it works with the actual values. Thanks for your work you've done already |
|
I Implemented everything optional (via ConvertOptions). Also I added an Structure Comparison into the "Parameter" Class, which compares the actual structure of Interfaces and Datablocks for compatibility. The Instance DB now only take the declaration from the FB, if these are compatible. This Check is done by an actual Structure compare. Maybe this could have been done by just comparing the InterfaceChange Date, but i decided to implement it this way. I did only basic testing with an simplistic project and Function block, but think some more testing needs to be done. Unfortunately i will not have time this week for anymore testing. Maybe somebody can prepare test cases..... I also added some more comments on various places, ... |
|
Should I merge now? |
|
Sorry for the delay. Did not have time yet for in depth tests, specifically with DB current data. But I would like to do some testing just to be sure. I think during this week i will have some time for testing. |
|
thanks |
|
i'll merge after your tests |
|
I tested it with the samples provided in the Issue that was raised. Everything is working fine. I dont know how to test the issue that you mentioned with the acutal data of the datablock. I think it should not be an problem, because Dataintegrity should always be ensured. If DB and FB are compatible, then so are the Actual data. If they are not compatible, then the DB is used as interface, for which the Actual data is compatible anyway. |
This is to make the behavior consistent with Step7.
Also reorders the class a little bit and added comments.
The behavior is fixed, and not yet adjustable via options. The important change is all in "private tmpBlock GetBlockBytes(ProjectBlockInfo blkInfo)"