Merged
Conversation
6d4ac4e to
1107c7c
Compare
KathrynBaker
approved these changes
Jan 20, 2026
Member
KathrynBaker
left a comment
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I may have missed something, but this looks like a reasonable implementation, and the SECoP emulator looks like a good start to a more complete one in the end.
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
A first pass at supporting the SECoP protocol using FastCS.
Implemented features:
.bob(Phoebus) GUIs, although they do not look very good (this comes for free from FastCS)SECoP features not implemented (for now):
deactivatemessage at startup; FastCS doesn't have infrastructure yet for async messages)checkandloggingextensionserror_*replies beyond logging and carrying onreadOnlyflag (which simply controls whether anAttrRorAttrRWis created)Basic communication/functional tests have been done against:
However, I'd expect to have to 'tweak' things that have been missed in this initial implementation, as and when we get SECoP devices in real life, since this implementation is not extensively tested against all possible permutations of SECoP features.