sanity check

[stirling]

In the following albeit trivial example (on V1.2047)

(starting from somewhere other than X100)

Code: Select all

exec.Code("G1 X100");
exec.AddStatusmessage("Finished");


The message doesn't get displayed until X=100 i.e. it waits for the gcode to finish before displaying the message. This is clearly incorrect behavior i.e. the Code() method is blocking and it shouldn't be.

Can someone try this on their system and let me know how it behaves please?

[dezsoe]

Hmm. The same here with 1.2049, also with the latest test version.

[Dan911]

Isn't macro's paused/ blocked when Gcode (run) is enabled??? I've read this in several threads but haven't experienced or tested.

[dezsoe]

Yes, Dan, exacty that made me say "Hmm"... I tested all the three methods with the same results:

Code: Select all

exec.Code("G0 X25");
exec.AddStatusmessage("Finished1");

exec.Codesync("G0 X50");
exec.AddStatusmessage("Finished2");

List<string> codelist = new List<string>(); //Create a new List of strings.
codelist.Add("G0 X0"); //Add g-code lines to the List.
exec.Codelist(codelist); //Execute the List of g-codes.
exec.AddStatusmessage("Finished3");


Now what about this thread?

[Battwell]

am i the only one that expects it to only print once finished?

[stirling]

Thanks for confirming it's not just here it's happening.

Now what about this thread?

Exactly so...

FWIW it appears that the Setfield() method also blocks.

[Robertspark]

That's the way I'd like it to work

[stirling]

@cncdrive - could you comment on this situation please?

It is my understanding that (current) intended behavior for my example snippet is that the gcode line and the message line should run asynchronously i.e. in parallel.

As I have said, on my system it behaves synchronously (i.e. serially) and it seems @Dezsoe at least is seeing the same on 1.2049.

Guys, I know some of you want serial execution but all I'm trying to establish at the moment is what the CURRENT system is MEANT to be doing.

If it's MEANT to be synchronous then so be it (though I'd profoundly disagree with that decision). However if it's currently MEANT to be asynchronous then it appears to me (and @Dezsoe) at least that it is not and therefore is bugged.

[dezsoe]

Yesterday late night, when I was tired to do any useful, I tested all the versions I have on my laptop. I'm not happy with the results:

Works fine (1.xxxx):
2031, 2032, 2033, 2035, 2036, 2037

Waits for the code to finish (1.xxxx):
1111, 1115, 1116, 1117, 2005, 2006, 2007, 2008, 2009, 2010, 2011, 2012, 2016, 2019, 2020, 2021, 2022, 2024, 2026, 2029, 2038, 2039, 2040, 2041, 2042, 2043, 2044, 2045, 2046, 2047, 2048, 2049, 2101, 2102, 2103, 2104, 2105, 2106, 2107

The test code was the same as before.

[cncdrive]

Dezsoe, why are you not happy with the results.
50% of the people are happy with this method and the others with the other.
E.g. Terry is happy with this one.