Text File Dumps of Configuration and Source -- A Useful New Tool

Since Version 10.6.1, DBDOC has reported the specifications that make up the configuration of an INFI 90 system in "DMPCFG" text files. We use these files to cross-check DBDOC handling of the CLD and CAD files, verifying that we are handling the CLDs and CAD sheets the same as the ABB compilers Composer and WinCAD (and DOS CADEWS and SLAD).

An offshoot of this work was that we were able to make DBDOC generate the same values as ABB compilers in the cases where we found the CFG files do not have the documented default values. Two examples are S28 of FC80 and S2 of FC 225. The documentation says each has a default value 2, but Composer and WinCAD compile a value of 0.

At the moment, you need to compare and interpret these text files manually, but look for DDBOC to do more automatically in the future.

The following example occurred this past week, and was something of a mystery to track down. DMPCFG proved its value as part of the solution.

Example 1: Mismatch Between CLD/CAD Files and the Module Load File.

A client was concerned at the failure of the blocks shown here (8120, 9498) to display live data in Hyperview.  As you can see, other blocks on the same sheet were showing live data without incident.  They speculated that the cause might have something to do with the fact that one of the blocks was an AOLDB, a new block type. 

DBDOC Analysis:

In fact, the block type issue was a red herring.  DBDOC does in fact support the newest block types added to Composer.   The fact that the values of the specifications were shown correctly was evidence for that.

The actual problem was almost certainly that the configuration in the module did not match the CLD, and the CLD is of course what is used to generated DBDOC's graphical representation of the CLD diagram.  We expected that most likely, for some reason, blocks 8120 and 9498 did not exist in the module, but that they were present in the CLD.

In order to verify this, we had a look at the DMPCFG files from the CFG (loaded into the module), and the CLD (used by DBDOC).  Surprisingly, they showed the exact opposite of what we were expecting!

CFG DMPCFG File -- 8120 and 9498 are present!

Block 8120 FC48 S1=9498 S2=16 S3=0.0 S4=50.0 S5=20.4 S6=-99.0 S7=1.0 S8=2.0 S9=2.0  

Block 9498 FC96 S1=5 S2=1254 S3=9497 S4=9.223E+018 S5=9.223E+018 S6=9.223E+018

And in the CLD DMPCFG file, 8120 and 9498 were absent. 

So then, how did 8120 and 9498 get into the CLD diagram displayed in Hyperview?  And why weren't they in the module at the time when live data was being requested and the screenshot taken?

DMPCFG File Comparison

It's clear from the contents of the DMPCFG files provided by the client, that at the point the DMPCFG files were created, the CFG did have blocks 8120 and 9498, while the CLD did not.

Left: CFG (with block 8120), Right: Source CLD (without 8120) 

Left: CFG (with block 9498), Right: Source CLD (without 9498, and with new blocks 9499 and 9501) 

What Actually Happened

This is what the sequence of events turned out to be:

1. By October, a CLD with block 8120 FC 48 and block 9498 FC 96 had been compiled into a CFG that was loaded into the module.
2. This same CLD was built by DBDOC into the October M14 file shown, where blocks 8120 and 9498 are present.
3. The CLD was changed to have blocks 8120 and 9498 removed, and blocks 9499 (a new DAANG block) and 9501 added.
4. A new M14 file was built in November, which was not being used when the problem was noticed.  However, it was this DBDOC build that generated the DMPCFG files in the comparison above, since at that moment, the CLD no longer had blocks 8120 and 9498. It had not yet been recompiled, so the CFG file remained unchanged as shown blocks 8120 and 9498.
5. Later, the CLD without blocks 8120 and 9498 was compiled, and the resulting CFG loaded into the module.
6. Finally, the October M14 was accidentally viewed in Hyperview, instead of the newest November one, leading to the CLD "NO CONN" screenshot first noted, as Hyperview attempted to fetch live data for blocks that no longer existed in the module.

Of course, one might ask, what caused the client to accidentally view the second most recent DBDOC M14 file, instead of the most recent one?

It turns out, when Hyperview opens an M14 specified with '*' (most users do this, because it's supposed to allow the most recent build to be opened automatically), it checks the File Creation date, which can be changed to the current date by copying the file.  This is what happened with the M14s in question -- they were copied, and the less recent of them received a newer File Creation timestamp, and thus was erroneously opened by Hyperview as the most recent M14.

We are changing Hyperview to instead look at the File Modified time for this purpose, and this modification will be seen in DBDOC 10.7.  Hopefully this will protect clients from this problem in the future.