Skip to content

Added second panda interface for P51 beamline#1986

Open
subughimire420 wants to merge 1 commit intomainfrom
inter-panda-triggering
Open

Added second panda interface for P51 beamline#1986
subughimire420 wants to merge 1 commit intomainfrom
inter-panda-triggering

Conversation

@subughimire420
Copy link
Contributor

A second Panda was required to facilitate inter-panda triggering for a P51 scan.

Inter-panda triggering functionality has been tested by loading two_panda_trigger plan in bl51p-ts-panda-01 and working_interPandaTriggering in bl51p-ts-panda-02, with the following scan parameters:
seq_table(start = 1, stop = 10, stepsize = 1, time_per_point = 0.5, motor = bc.devices.turbo_slit_x, add_sweep_triggers=True, number_of_sweeps= 8, detectors = [bc.devices.panda1, bc.devices.panda2])

@subughimire420 subughimire420 requested a review from a team as a code owner March 23, 2026 15:20
@codecov
Copy link

codecov bot commented Mar 23, 2026

Codecov Report

✅ All modified and coverable lines are covered by tests.
✅ Project coverage is 99.11%. Comparing base (a039d73) to head (0b0d1ed).

Additional details and impacted files
@@           Coverage Diff           @@
##             main    #1986   +/-   ##
=======================================
  Coverage   99.11%   99.11%           
=======================================
  Files         319      319           
  Lines       12267    12270    +3     
=======================================
+ Hits        12158    12161    +3     
  Misses        109      109           

☔ View full report in Codecov by Sentry.
📢 Have feedback on the report? Share it here.

🚀 New features to boost your workflow:
  • ❄️ Test Analytics: Detect flaky tests, report on failures, and find test suite problems.

Comment on lines +66 to 70
def panda1(path_provider: PathProvider) -> HDFPanda:
return HDFPanda(
f"{PREFIX.beamline_prefix}-EA-PANDA-02:",
path_provider=path_provider,
)
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

panda1 device but PV is panda 2, is this correct?

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Yes, we designed the scans in panda-02 first, and called it panda1. That might be changed later, but as the scans currently stand, this is intentional and correct.

Comment on lines +74 to +78
def panda2(path_provider: PathProvider) -> HDFPanda:
return HDFPanda(
f"{PREFIX.beamline_prefix}-EA-PANDA-01:",
path_provider=path_provider,
)
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

panda2 device but PV is panda 1, is this correct?

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.

3 participants