4/30/2023 0 Comments Ignition 7.9 isalarmactive![]() ![]() This is not as concise, but the execution time of the same scanclass was reduced to 10ms. I replaced each instance of this function with the following: Then, I checked out the scanclass performance and found that the 5 sec scanclass was averaging over 30 sec per execution. 0 Comments What appears first is the index, by application. I have configurable setpoints and ‘enable’ tags that the alarmed tag references in its configuration. Since we are committed to supporting Java 6 and 7 clients in Ignition 7.9, Java 10 support won’t be available in Ignition 7.9. Inductive Automation Forum isAlarmActiveFiltered throws REFERENCENOTFOUND when alarms not enabled Ignition ignition79 bfuson April 8, 2019, 6:59pm 1 Howdy, I’m trying to implement a client-configurable alarming system within Ignition 7.9.10. ![]() ![]() Unfortunately, Ignition can’t effectively support Java 6 and 7 while simultaneously supporting Java 10 due to recent changes in Java. Java 10 is not supported with Ignition 7.9. I implemented over a hundred instances of this in a few different flavors. Ignition 7.9 supports Java 6, 7, 8, and 9. My actual function is a little more complex, but the point is I was using the isAlarmActive() function as a kind of latch in case of sensor error and comm errors or things that might make a process value falsely drop to a safe value. If (Level > SP || ( isAlarmActive("High Level Tag") & Sensor_Error ), True, False) ![]() Can anyone shed light on some performance issues I’ve had with this expression function? I tried using this expression an alarm tag inside of a UDT in the following way: ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |