Meta commands works differently on different machines.

equipment66

Hi.

This is my first post here. You maybe like to redirect me to right place, if something

I have a few RRF-based boards for 3d printer and CNC and like it because of easy programming.

Some time ago I wrote few macros with meta commands. Suddenly I found that my macros with meta commands, written for one machine, won't work on other one and needs debugging. Finally, I started it, but that means that same code can not produce the same result on different plates. I don't know, is it problem of my board(s) or firmware, but maybe it could be interesting for you?

Boards :
Fly-Gemini v2, running on RRF 3.3.0
Fly E3 v1, running on firmware-stm32f4-wifi-3.4.4_103

An example of macro:

echo >"0:/macros/TestLog.txt" "Test started: " ^{state.time}
while true
	If iterations > 5
		break
	; Comment with leading TAB - works correctly
	echo "Line " ^ line ^ ": 1st part of loop"
; Comment without leading TAB - stops loop on E3v1 board
	echo "Line " ^ line ^ ": 2nd part of loop"
echo "Line " ^ line ^ ": end of loop"

Description:

Conditional construct "If..." processed correctly on Gemini v2, but returns "bad command" error on E3v1 because of leading capital letter "I".
Comment inside body of loop, placed without leading TAB, can work like "end of loop" mark and stop execution on E3v1. However, it is processed correctly on Gemini v2.
"state.time"` works correctly on E3v1, but fails on Gemini (received otput: "Test started: 0.0009886")
I can see strange "line shift" in macro during execution on E3v1. During 1st iteration number of line is reported correctly (#6), later +1 (#7), Please see console output bellow. Btw, I didn't tested that on Gemini.

2/11/2023, 8:55:34 PM	M98 P"0:/macros/Test2.g"
Line 6: 1st part of loop
Line 7: 1st part of loop
Line 7: 1st part of loop
Line 7: 1st part of loop
Line 7: 1st part of loop
Line 7: 1st part of loop
Line 9: 2nd part of loop
Line 10: end of loop

In answer to #Infiniteloop:
I can not find any button "reply" on this forum, so Ill place my answer here...
Maybe you're right, I'm on wrong planet or wrong firmware... Or maybe on wrong clone, that also can be true. I don't know about all of your relationships, just found few problems and liked to report it to somebody, who care about firmware - and maybe my findings could be useful for fixes in future releases. Or, maybe somebody like to put some remarks to documentation.
If not, I'll ask admins to feel free to delete this post.

I added missing info to my post.

Now, can I take my towel and rest a little bit?

@Phaedrux, is it possible get the right to place replies in this forum? Communication is a little bit difficult without this

in answer to @infiniteloop #2:

I can not find any button "reply" in place you described.
I have not enough privileges to post screenshot.
I tried to send confirmation e-mail and didnt received nothing.

infiniteloop

@equipment66

You maybe like to redirect me to right place

Hm, maybe wrong door, wrong floor, wrong planet? "Gemini v2" vs. "E3v1" sounds impressive - at least, I managed to google the Gemini: a board I never heard of (not even a clone of a Duet). With the E3v1, I got no hit at all. I guess you talk about controllers for 3D printers?

The meta commands, finally, look familiar: supposedly you are running some flavour of RepRapFirmware on your alien boards. Must be from different compilations, maybe different versions, too.

If your request should be meant seriously, you should at least specify the origins and versions of the RRF derivatives used. Presumably, that will already be the answer to your question. No, in this case, it's not "42".

Phaedrux

@equipment66 said in Meta commands works differently on different machines.:

Fly E3 v1, running on firmware-stm32f4-wifi-3.4.4_103

Sounds like a Mellow Fly STM based board running the RRF port.

gloomyandy

@Phaedrux Both setups are using the STM32 port of RRF. Unfortunately different versions of RRF are in use so it is hard to tell if these differences between macro handling are due to version differences or to standalone/SBC differences.

Sindarius

I spoke with @equipment66 for a little bit about some of the items he has seen a couple days ago. There is one item which is interesting and is a difference between SBC and Standalone on a Duet board with RRF 3.5beta1 at least.

On Standalone

On SBC

While switching to not using the {} fixes the output it is an inconsistency between the two.

infiniteloop

@equipment66

I can not find any button "reply" on this forum, so Ill place my answer here...

– it's in the footer of each post, leftmost item on the right –

–––––––––

Just found your reply. Looking at what goes on here, another planet sometimes seems a desirable option to me - so, no offence.

Having looked up the Gemini, I saw it differs from the Duet designs, and I assumed that for the E3, too… which lets me think that RRF must have been adapted (ported) to the hardware. Thus my request for origins and version numbers: they could explain the different behaviour on your script.

Well, the Duet’s Genius Bar ( @Phaedrux and @gloomyandy ) luckily figured it out, and with @Sindarius reporting another quirk you spotted, they now have something to investigate further.

So thanks for sharing your observations, and if you promise to add some infos about the firmware the next time, I grant you unlimited rights to stay on the planet

Phaedrux

@equipment66 said in Meta commands works differently on different machines.:

@Phaedrux, is it possible get the right to place replies in this forum? Communication is a little bit difficult without this

Have you verified your signup email address yet?

T3P3Tony

@equipment66 yes, until you have a verified email the forum settings do not allow replies

chrishamm

@Sindarius I already fixed DateTime inconsistencies in SBC mode in v3.5-b2: