I resolved it by doing multiple request instead of one big request, and i
skipped a few boolean variables.
%F0.7:BOOL,%F0.6:BOOL,%F0.5:BOOL,%F0.4:BOOL,%F0.3:BOOL,%F0.2:BOOL,%F0.1:BOOL,%F0.0:BOOL,%F0:BYTE
%I40:UINT,%Q2.5:BOOL,%Q3:UINT
Hi,
short update (we just had a discussion offline).
This should be the Bug which will be fixed with release 0.3.1 as there are many
1 byte requests (Bool and Byte).
So
tl; dr; for chris: stfu : )
Julian
Am 07.03.19, 16:26 schrieb "Christofer Dutz" :
Hi Gunther,
I was a little
Hi Gunther,
I was a little surprised about your finding as it seems all items have even
byte-number types so the fill-byte problem shouldn't occur.
And the splitting of requests should also work quite well for S7 ... In one POC
we even read 2600 items in one logical request, which was
Hi,
with some small tweaks in my code i can read all the variables from a s7-1500
with the 0.3 version. I will switch to 0.3.1 after release.
Thx for this awesome library.
Below some proof :)
timestamp driveSetFreqInPercent currentDrivePercent
currentSpeedInRpm
1551966078526
timbo2k merged pull request #46: PLC4X-88: Add Triggering to PLC Scraper
URL: https://github.com/apache/incubator-plc4x/pull/46
This is an automated message from the Apache Git Service.
To respond to the message, please log
timbo2k commented on issue #46: PLC4X-88: Add Triggering to PLC Scraper
URL: https://github.com/apache/incubator-plc4x/pull/46#issuecomment-470495212
I will close discussion and merge PR into master
This is an automated
Hi everybody
The scraper is not really S7 specific as the sources can be entered via
connection-string and the regarding fields as well. We yet only tested
functionality with S7 devices because priority has been the highest.
The only thing that is S7 specific right now is the S7_TRIGGER i
Hi,
the reason why Tim implemented it that way is a rather technical one.
This should be fixed with the PR 47 which I just submitted [1].
Currently the S7 Driver is the only one which provides type information after
Parsing, thus, Tim used that feature directly.
@Tim: You can check the PR and
Hi there,
from my maybe ignorant point of view, I also don’t understand why a feature
like the scraper (as I have understood it) should be specific for a special
automation family. I´d think that such ideas as reacting on a trigger or doing
something on timed trigger basis is pretty basic and
Hi,
thanks for the fast response Justin.
Then I guess, we could start a vote, couldn't we?
Julian
Am 07.03.19, 12:13 schrieb "Justin Mclean" :
Hi,
> Having gone through Justin's link to the Apache maturity model [1] I
guess we are on an extremely good path (Keep in mind this is
Hi,
> Having gone through Justin's link to the Apache maturity model [1] I guess we
> are on an extremely good path (Keep in mind this is not a maturity model for
> incubator projects, but all Apache projects)
Also keep in mind that a) the maturity model is not a requirement to graduation
but
Well as far as I can see it we could address most pretty quickly ... it's just
the:
QU40
Is something we couldn't do immediately IMHO.
Chris
Am 07.03.19, 11:55 schrieb "Christofer Dutz" :
Hi all,
Having gone through Justin's link to the Apache maturity model [1] I guess
we are
Hey Chris,
I just made a quick (but I think not unreasonable) fix for this Issue and
opened a PR https://github.com/apache/incubator-plc4x/pull/47.
Could you check over it if this seems suitable for you?
The reason why I use the Java Type there is that all drivers may have different
(internal)
JulianFeinauer opened a new pull request #47: Extend field with type information
URL: https://github.com/apache/incubator-plc4x/pull/47
Heyho, this PR refers to the mail exchange with the driver specificality of
the (new) scraper (PR #46 ).
Please check if this change is acceptable for
Hi Chris,
the new Scraper IS currently S7 specific, yes.
This is why I want such a refactoring to make it unspecific (because I also
don’t whant it that way).
The reason for this is the following code.
```
this.s7Field = S7Field.of(triggerVariable);
```
Together with the more crucial
```
Hi Julian,
the new Scraper is S7 specific? Was the old one too? Just asking, cause I don't
really like the idea of having protocol-specific tools as it's the whole point
of PLC4X to be unspecific.
Regarding the other topics ... I sort of couldn't immediately wrap my head
around that ... could
I just double checked, he is now officially part of the LDAP group for PLC4X.
I just noticed a few days ago, that sort of never was created ... so if you
were having problems ... they were probably related to that.
So please try again.
Chris
Am 07.03.19, 08:55 schrieb "GitBox" :
Hi all,
I think PLC4X is pretty stable and major right now and we currently have two
main points of improvement. First, is the generative driver topics which is
“driven” by chris mostly.
The other direction is to add new drivers.
But there is one thing in the API which I do not like (and which
18 matches
Mail list logo
