Release 0.2.0 - #64
Merged
Merged
Conversation
asyncio.py was importing Handler/SharedPV from p4p.server.thread instead of p4p.server.asyncio, so p4pillon's "asyncio" SharedPV was silently the thread-flavored class. Rewrite test_sharedpv_asyncio.py to construct the PV inside a running event loop (real asyncio SharedPV requires one), and add pytest-asyncio so it can. Co-Authored-By: Claude Sonnet 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
…ne being used, some new unit tests
Ported from unreleased work-in-progress found in upstream epics-base/p4p (p4p_upstream, uncommitted as of p4p 4.2.1/4.2.2). Adds RecordProvider and DynamicRecordFields, serving "<name>.<FIELD>" as independent read-only channels for DTYP, RTYP, NAME, and the fields common to every EPICS record (dbCommon.dbd), mimicking IOC/QSRV field-access semantics without touching the base PV's own NTScalar/NTEnum structure. Adapted to default field sub-PVs to p4pillon's own Handler-capable SharedPV. Two tests are xfailed: SharedPV.open() in p4pillon/server/raw.py double-wraps its initial= value, which is harmless for NTScalar but crashes for NTNDArray/NTTable-backed PVs. Pre-existing, unrelated bug; left for its own dedicated fix. Co-Authored-By: Claude Sonnet 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
…splay.description
…ay.description / DESC to optional
… the desired behaviour; include regression tests
…to 50-access-to-ioc-fields
… DESC update from Static and add set_description()
…ded through .providers
… fixes from enabling more ruff checks
…ts for all Rules derived from BaseRule
Comment rule-code list entry, apply --fix/--unsafe-fixes for RUF010/RUF015/RUF005/RUF022/RUF100, and annotate mutable class-level defaults with ClassVar (RUF012) across the rules package and its consumers.
…to 56-ruff-ruf # Conflicts: # p4pillon/rules/timestamp_rule.py
…to 50-access-to-ioc-fields
…r lifetimes, .keys() available
Closed
Monarda
marked this pull request as draft
September 24, 2026 14:56
kurup
force-pushed
the
59-fix-valuealarm
branch
from
September 25, 2026 11:18
6436141 to
af7286e
Compare
kurup
approved these changes
Sep 28, 2026
kurup
left a comment
kurup
left a comment
Contributor
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I'm happy for this to be merged into main.
Monarda
marked this pull request as ready for review
September 28, 2026 12:34
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
2 participants
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
We have been advising people for the last few weeks to use the release tagged 0.2.0rc4. This is that exact commit merged into main. It's worth examining the changelog to see what will change.
Note, this merge will show as conflicted in GitHub. This isn't actually true, it's an artefact of the history. Choosing to resolve in favour of 59-fix-valuealarm in every case will preserve main's existing changes and add only additional changes.