Mutiple Motion Systems & Macro Conflicts in 3.5

SumoSniper

@droftarts Thanks for the suggestion - on reading the link I'm not sure that's my issue.

"Not queued" in this case in my reading would mean that effectively the queuing stops because the firmware needs to wait to be able to evaluate the expressions. So this could cause a delay, as it needs to be processed right before being executed, but it doesn't explain metacommands being executed "early" as such. Unless the lack of queuing is causing a desync between the command and move queues, I would still be mostly suspect of the MMS being my culprit.

NineMile

@SumoSniper said in Mutiple Motion Systems & Macro Conflicts in 3.5:

@droftarts Thanks for the suggestion - on reading the link I'm not sure that's my issue.

"Not queued" in this case in my reading would mean that effectively the queuing stops because the firmware needs to wait to be able to evaluate the expressions. So this could cause a delay, as it needs to be processed right before being executed, but it doesn't explain metacommands being executed "early" as such. Unless the lack of queuing is causing a desync between the command and move queues, I would still be mostly suspect of the MMS being my culprit.

I'm not so sure about this - I think this does explain why the meta commands are executed early due to MMS, if you assume that not queued means run immediately. You have File and File2 - File2 runs ahead of File as it isn't processing and waiting for movement commands in a system that doesn't use MMS. But it does process meta gcode commands, and because object model expressions can't be queued, they are executed immediately, which is what causes them to run 'ahead' of where you would expect.

How to work around this I'm not sure of yet, but it does seem like it creates a very big foot gun since it fundamentally changes how meta gcode works, with (currently?) no way to revert to the previous behaviour.

It seems to me like not having a way to disable MMS behaviour on machines that don't have multiple movement systems is going to cause some problems, given that now there's a concurrency problem whenever one writes meta gcode that will be executed from a print file.

SumoSniper

@NineMile Correct, if not queued means run immediately then we would expect this behaviour but that would be... well weird to say the least. Some clarification from devs would be ideal.

I have created a simple test case that anyone should be able to run to reproduce this:

G21 ; set units to millimeters
G90 ; use absolute coordinates

G0 Z5
G0 X50 Y50
M400
G1 X150 Y50 F3000 ; this move should take 2 seconds
G1 X100 Y50 F3000 ; this move should take 1 second
M400
M98 P"abort-test-1.g" ;abort test macro checks to see if X=150, if not, aborts
G1 X50 Y50 F3000 ; this move should take 1 second ** IN MY TESTING, THE NEXT MACRO RUNS DURING THIS MOVE AND FAILS OUT
G4 P2000
G1 X150 Y50 F3000 ; this move should take 2 seconds
G1 X100 Y50 F3000 ; this move should take 1 second
M400
M98 P"abort-test-2.g" ;abort test macro checks to see if X=150, if not, aborts
G1 X50 Y50 F3000 ; this move should take 1 second
G4 P2000
G1 X150 Y50 F3000 ; this move should take 2 seconds
G1 X{global.abortpos1} Y50 F3000 ; this move should take 1 second
M400
M98 P"abort-test-3.g" ;abort test macro checks to see if X=150, if not, aborts
G4 P2000
echo "Did not abort" ; if we got here, then the M400 did its job and stopped the M98 being executed before the move finished

abort-test-1.g

if move.axes[0].machinePosition != 100
  abort "Aborted at macro 1! MP: " ^ move.axes[0].machinePosition

if !exists(global.aborttest1)
  global aborttest1 = true

abort-test-2.g

if move.axes[0].machinePosition != 100
  abort "Aborted at macro 2! MP: " ^ move.axes[0].machinePosition

if !exists(global.abortpos)
  global abortpos = 100

abort-test-3.g

if move.axes[0].machinePosition != 100
  abort "Aborted at macro 3! MP: " ^ move.axes[0].machinePosition

Put the 3 .g files in your sys directory and then run the .gcode as a job.

In all cases, the machine does some slow moves between positions to end at X100 with a M400 command after. According to the MMS documentation, this should allow all moves to end before further execution, however the abort-test macros check for the machine position and abort if this position is not correct.

As commented in the code, my testing fails at test #2 over 8 seconds before the macro should have been executed. Interestingly, I was expecting it to fail already at abort no. 1. I included test 3 to try @droftarts theory but I never get there anyway...

SumoSniper

@droftarts Is there any chance we can move this to the Beta Firmware forum, I think I misplaced it putting it here.

SumoSniper

It looks like this thread might be a similar issue if that helps to combine efforts.

[3.5.0-rc.3] Conditional 'abort' command called unexpectedly

SumoSniper

@dc42 @gloomyandy is there any chance we can get an M code to just switch the 2nd motion system processing off until this one gets figured out?

I posted that simple test code above that reliably brings up the problem.

adambx

Hi @SumoSniper ,
I'm facing similar issues, but with a more complex macro structure with submacros modifying and checking global variables. I haven't investigated too deeply but have been able to get around all issues so far by adding some M598's. First randomly at the start of every macro that is being called and at various points inside the macros. I settled on placing M598's after calls to macros that could modify a global variable that i will need later on and before i check/use a global variable that could have been modified by a macro.

Due to time constraints i could not investigate too far or boil it down to test cases, but i figured it's because of the deferred queue. Now macros called from jobs behave just as theones being called when no job is running.

I hope to have some time to read up more on this topic at some point. It would also help if the documentation had some examples of what could go wrong for people using only 1 motion system but trip over some problems with macros, meta commands and queueing etc.

Hope my "advice" could help out
Cheers

dc42

@SumoSniper @adambx I am currently reviewing how conditional GCode commands and multiple motion systems interact. Currently, global, set global and echo commands are only processed by the active file reader; but other commands including abort and the evaluation of conditions in if, elif and while commands is performed by both motion systems. I will change it to execute abort commands only from the active reader; however this will not solve the issue of using global variables in the evaluation of conditions.

Meanwhile, as a workaround it should be sufficient to place the following at the start of each affected macro, to make the inactive file reader skip all of it:

if state.thisInput != null & !state.thisInput.active
  M99

dc42

PS - the firmware binaries at https://www.dropbox.com/scl/fo/p0136wx04h8xf6ejwdnn9/h?rlkey=efrfwyb6o5tqid11gustz3uvy&dl=0 now include the change to execute abort only from the active file stream.

SumoSniper

@dc42 Excellent thanks for that, the workaround should do it for me, will test it out soon.

No doubt picking what gets executed where is a bit of a pickle, similar to the challenges of refactoring code for multithreading.

I wonder if you might not save yourself a bunch of headaches by putting in an optional parameter on M98 that selects the motion system / reader you want to run it on? Then you could have either a default behaviour or a reserved constant you could drop into that so that you can perpetuate macro execution within the same motion system.

eg: A normal macro run is M98 P"foo.g" with optional "S" parameter where -1 is run on calling thread, 0 is run on ALL, 1+ is run on that motion system. Then default could be be -1 which would give the most consistent results for 99% of users.

adambx

Thanks a lot. Will try it out!

SumoSniper

@dc42 I'm getting an error with this code:

if state.thisInput != null & !state.thisInput.active
   M99
Error:  line 8 column 31: meta command: reached primitive type before end of selector string

The position is pointing to the ! on the second selector which is a bit confusing...

edit: I tried to diagnose more:

28/02/2024, 12:03:16 pm 	echo state.thisInput != "null"
Error:  at column 31: meta command: cannot convert operands to same type
28/02/2024, 12:01:37 pm 	echo state.thisInput
0
28/02/2024, 12:01:22 pm 	echo state.thisInput != null
true
28/02/2024, 12:00:59 pm 	echo exists(state.thisInput)
true

But in the object model on DWC it is showing as =null

Further edit: I put echos at the start of the relevant macro to see what was going on and the same outputs are happening - so state.thisInput exists and is returning 0 but not evaluating as null, so it can't find .active and fails out.

dc42

@SumoSniper please try this instead:

if !inputs[state.thisInput].active
  M99

state.thisInput should return 2 when executed by the primary File stream and 12 when executed by the secondary File stream. It should return 0 when executed from the http stream.

o_lampe

@dc42 What would it return when I execute it from daemon.g or a macro? Are those http-calls, too?

dc42

@o_lampe it would return true. The only reason it shows as null in the object model browser is that the fetch of the object model by DWC is not made in the context of any input. If you run:

echo inputs[state.thisInput].active

from the DWC command line then it will return true.

SumoSniper

@dc42 Thanks! That one has fixed it, macros functioning as expected now. Interested to hear where the MMS metacommand handling goes when you've decided on that!

Cheers!

dc42

@SumoSniper @adambx @NineMile @o_lampe I have put new firmware binaries at https://www.dropbox.com/scl/fo/3y4agkmfzfmqcifuecqo3/h?rlkey=j0kibs1tubm5dfj7o2vz1vbzj&dl=0. The main difference is that multiple file readers are now only used if your job file or start.g file uses the new M606 command to fork the file reader (see https://docs.duet3d.com/en/User_manual/Reference/Gcodes#m606-fork-input-file-reader) . Therefore, unless you use that command, macros will only be executed by one reader, which should solve the problem.

If you do use M606 then the behaviour will be as it was previously from that point onwards, and you will need to ensure that any macros executed subsequently to that M606 command are suitable for execution by both file readers. For example, you can ensure that any global variables needed are set up before the M606 command executes. Please note, testing of the M606 command is still in progress.