Feature/rc1 #10
Feature/rc1 #10
Conversation
| <TcSmProject xmlns:xsi="http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema-instance" xsi:noNamespaceSchemaLocation="http://www.beckhoff.com/schemas/2012/07/TcSmProject" TcSmVersion="1.0" TcVersion="3.1.4024.53"> | ||
| <Project ProjectGUID="{F6F7C937-218D-4551-B982-43F369B598A4}" Target64Bit="true" ShowHideConfigurations="#x3c7"> | ||
| <TcSmProject xmlns:xsi="http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema-instance" xsi:noNamespaceSchemaLocation="http://www.beckhoff.com/schemas/2012/07/TcSmProject" TcSmVersion="1.0" TcVersion="3.1.4024.55"> | ||
| <Project ProjectGUID="{F6F7C937-218D-4551-B982-43F369B598A4}" TargetNetId="1.0.0.209.1.1" Target64Bit="true" ShowHideConfigurations="#x3c7"> |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Is it possible to remove this NetID?
|
|
||
| 0: | ||
| IF OnEntry() THEN | ||
| RequestStep( 1 ); |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Can we see if STweep will standardize spaces around parameters automatically? This is inconsistent.
| END_IF | ||
|
|
||
|
|
||
| IF OnSuccess(-1) THEN |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
A comment to explain the significance of -1 would be helpful. Otherwise it may be interpreted as an error state.
In fact, could we make an ENUM for these? OnSuccess(SEQ_COMPLETE), for example?
| <TcPlcObject Version="1.1.0.1"> | ||
| <POU Name="Mock_EM" Id="{2fbe5d7f-06dd-041a-2d03-5fb4cef27abb}" SpecialFunc="None"> | ||
| <Declaration><![CDATA[ | ||
| FUNCTION_BLOCK Mock_EM IMPLEMENTS IMOCK_EM |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
This appears to be the only place where _'s are used in the name. Is there significance to IMOCK being all-caps?
| VAR | ||
| _MoveUp : PLCopenCommand; | ||
| _MoveDown : PLCopenCommand; | ||
| _HeightGroup : PLCopenExclusiveGroup := (commands := [_MoveUp, _MoveDown, 18(0)]); |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
What's the significance of 18(0) here? I'm surprised to see that as valid syntax, but perhaps I'm missing something.
| t : TON; | ||
| Up : BOOL; | ||
| Down : BOOL; | ||
| Up_ : BOOL; |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
What's the distinction between Up_ and Up? This could be confusing to new users in the example without a comment.
| @@ -89,10 +96,13 @@ TEST_FINISHED();]]></ST> | |||
| </Implementation> | |||
| </Method> | |||
| <Method Name="OnError" Id="{ceefdcc0-adb1-4ad8-928a-8e1e77a9bfee}"> | |||
| <Declaration><![CDATA[METHOD OnError | |||
| <Declaration><![CDATA[{attribute 'no-analysis'} | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
| <Declaration><![CDATA[{attribute 'no-analysis'} | |
| <Declaration><![CDATA[ |
'no-analysis' was here twice
| ]]></Declaration> | ||
| <Implementation> | ||
| <ST><
What:
This is the first release candidate. Looking for feedback on AP, functionality, naming and implementation where relevant. Internals are less relevant at this point and may still change in future versions.
Why:
We want to get this to a releasable version to start making docs and examples.