Closed gschaffner closed 2 weeks ago
Attention: Patch coverage is 86.36364%
with 6 lines
in your changes missing coverage. Please review.
Project coverage is 86.67%. Comparing base (
9bed424
) to head (bd09835
). Report is 14 commits behind head on main.
Files | Patch % | Lines |
---|---|---|
pyvisa_sim/sessions/session.py | 77.77% | 2 Missing and 4 partials :warning: |
:umbrella: View full report in Codecov by Sentry.
:loudspeaker: Have feedback on the report? Share it here.
Thanks @gschaffner
hi! this fixes #45.
i believe this implementation is spec. compliant, with one possible exception: there's a case that the spec. doesn't seem to state what should happen in.
Rule 6.1.7 states that when using ASRL with
VI_ATTR_ASRL_END_IN = VI_ASRL_END_TERMCHAR
, when a termination character is read it should get treated as having an END indicator.as far as I can tell, however, the spec. does not state what should happen when using ASRL with
VI_ATTR_ASRL_END_IN = VI_ASRL_END_LAST_BIT
and a character arrives with the matching bit set. should it get treated as END or should it get treated as a termination character? the status code depends on which it gets treated as.since the only three cases for
VI_ATTR_ASRL_END_IN
areVI_ASRL_END_NONE
(uninteresting),VI_ASRL_END_TERMCHAR
, andVI_ASRL_END_LAST_BIT
and since Rule 6.1.7 explicitly states thatVI_ASRL_END_TERMCHAR
causes the character to get treated as having an END indicator, not as a termination character, it seemed to me that it is more more appropriate forVI_ASRL_END_LAST_BIT
to also cause the character to get treated as having an END.either way, this fixes #45 though.