Skip to content

Conversation

rerpha
Copy link

@rerpha rerpha commented Apr 16, 2024

Adds a default message for pvget. I don't know if line 363 (the default case) was a bug as i could never get it to run. @ralphlange I found this after I showed you my (accidentally?) working PVAccess.

Maybe there's a good reason that pvget doesn't have this line but the other tools do, please let me know!

@AppVeyorBot
Copy link

@AppVeyorBot
Copy link

@AppVeyorBot
Copy link

@mdavidsaver
Copy link
Member

I don't know if line 363 (the default case) was a bug as i could never get it to run.

That default case should be impossible so long as the switch is consistent with the string passed to getopt(). imo. any inconsistency should be an error. I usually combine default and '?' though.

Maybe there's a good reason that pvget doesn't have this line but the other tools do, please let me know!

I guess you are referring to caget?

It think it is a bit of a judgement call whether PVs is an error with pvget. With pvmonitor I think this should be.

Is it worth changing behavior at this point?

@rerpha
Copy link
Author

rerpha commented May 20, 2024

Maybe there's a good reason that pvget doesn't have this line but the other tools do, please let me know!

I guess you are referring to caget?

It think it is a bit of a judgement call whether PVs is an error with pvget. With pvmonitor I think this should be.

Is it worth changing behavior at this point?

by other tools yes caget, but also pvput, pvinfo, pvmonitor all seem to give the "No pv name(s) specified. ('pvXXXX -h' for help.)" message - just thinking for consistency among the pv* utils it might be nice.

@AppVeyorBot
Copy link

Comment on lines 373 to 374
usage();
return 1;
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Please fix the indentation, these should line up with the fprintf() above.

Copy link
Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

whoops, sorry, i forgot about this completely - now done.

@rerpha rerpha requested a review from anjohnson April 9, 2025 10:42
@AppVeyorBot
Copy link

Build pvAccessCPP 1.0.116 failed (commit 9a1e4a8a81 by @rerpha)

Copy link
Member

@anjohnson anjohnson left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Thank-you, this looks fine now.

Just a note for any future Pull Requests you make that have more complex changes and more than one commit: Please don't use git pull after committing changes, since that adds a merge commit to your PR branch. Our preferred method of moving your changes up to the latest commit on the 7.0 branch is to do a git pull --rebase. In this case though we will squash your changes into a single commit when we merge it so you don't need to do anything more here.

@AppVeyorBot
Copy link

Build pvAccessCPP 1.0.117 failed (commit bd8810429a by @rerpha)

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Labels

None yet

Projects

None yet

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

4 participants