Updated fix for changed fields#83
Conversation
|
Was this a necessary condition that you missed before? Can you explain why here the master field's name is an empty string, but in #82 it was a single underscore |
|
Yes, I simply missed this when testing, and discovered the issue a few days ago. We indicate request for the top level structure (master field) in the request string by |
|
I don't claim to understand how the master field is used, but #82 did refer to it and pvCopy.cpp does look for it in the pvRequest. Please confirm there's no incompatibility between that and the code here (I don't need a detailed explanation, just for you to confirm they do both make sense). |
|
There should be no incompatibility, and I added tests to make sure the problem I saw was addressed. |
|
@sveseli should this have been merged? Forgotten... |
|
Yes, it should have been merged. I believe we talked about it. |
|
So I apparently merged #82 last July, so that was included in the EPICS 7.0.9 release, but not this PR. Is that missing code a significant problem for APS at all? This does need a line in the Release Notes about the change. |
Up to standards ✅🟢 Issues
|
| Metric | Results |
|---|---|
| Complexity | 0 |
| Duplication | 0 |
NEW Get contextual insights on your PRs based on Codacy's metrics, along with PR and Jira context, without leaving GitHub. Enable AI reviewer
TIP This summary will be updated as you push new changes.
|
Still looking for an entry in the Release Notes in order to merge this. |
|
✅ Build pvDatabaseCPP 1.0.4 completed (commit b0e7975295 by @sveseli) |
3 participants
This PR updates condition for determining master field added in PR #82. A number of new tests have been added for the use case where PV request specifies individual fields.