Driver/infiniium additional parameters #1203
Conversation
Codecov Report
@@ Coverage Diff @@
## master #1203 +/- ##
=======================================
Coverage 80.16% 80.16%
=======================================
Files 49 49
Lines 6762 6762
=======================================
Hits 5421 5421
Misses 1341 1341 |
That's also what I am thinking. They describe the state of the signal, not the state of the instrument. |
| get_parser=float, | ||
| unit='V') | ||
|
|
||
| def _meas(self, cmd: str) -> str: |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Do you want this to be a static method. Also imho the name is slightly misleading. How about _generate_meas_str or some such thing?
…illiamHPNielsen/Qcodes into driver/Infiniium_additional_parameters
| parameters | ||
| """ | ||
| # note: this is not really a channel, but InstrumentChannel does everything | ||
| # a 'Submodule' class should do |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
We had a discussion in a bug report about renaming InstrumentChannel for this reason (can't find the discussion right now though). Perhaps we should revisit?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
this can be very easily solved by renaming InstrumentChannel class to SubModule (or SubInstrument, whatever) and adding InstrumentChannel = SubModule after SubModule class definition.
SubModule seems like a good name. But what "should this class do"? Contain a piece of functionality with tight reference/coupling to the instrument that it is a part of?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I like the name SubModule too. I think InstrumentChannel already is that class. If you guys would like to discuss this more, then let us perhaps open a separate issue.
|
I'd say this is ready to land. |
Changes proposed in this pull request:
__init__. If headers are on, instrument responses ping back the query as well as the value, and ourget_parsers can't handle thatQuestion: should the measurement submodule be snapshotted?
@QCoDeS/core