Closed ksunden closed 2 years ago
Created as a draft as implementing has served to raise a lot of questions that I would like to reach more of a consensus on before fully finishing this feature.
In other news, I'm pretty confident on the path forward to addressing #67 after working on this and doing a bit of additional looking at bluesky/ophyd internals.
Test failures are because we are inconsistent in the ecosystem on how we actually define fields... so I think we need to address that before we merge this feature that depends on the field definitions... (also needed to make development of yaqc-qtpy sane)
Tests pass locally, but rely on new behavior in as yet unreleased yaqc... we will have to pin upon release of yaqc
Closes #66
This is an initial implementation, there are some things including about the underlying implementation of fields in yaq that I have questions about smoothing out after working on this.
Currently have to reach into the private variable
_protocol
of the clientClunky access of fields with confusing "fields" entry in the record type which is an avro thing, not the yaq field.
Do we need the
_read
method, if so, do we need a parallel method for configuration?We do not currently have any fields defined in yaq that are
dynamic=False
, thus I have not tested the configuration code really at all. Further this makes me consider if dynamic is even doing what we want it to at all.has-limits
del
in_has_limits.py
has-position
general comments