Refactor LockIn-SignalRecovery_7265DSP time constant logic - with RAG #11

ofir-frd · 2025-06-11T16:41:28Z

PR Type

Bug fix

Description

• Fixed time constant selection logic in LockIn driver
• Corrected auto time constant calculation formula
• Fixed wait completion status check condition
• Removed debugging comments for cleaner code

Changes walkthrough 📝

Relevant files

Bug fix

main.py `Fix time constant logic and status checks` src/LockIn-SignalRecovery_7265DSP/main.py • Changed comparison operator from `<` to `>` in time constant selection • Fixed auto time constant formula from `factor*period` to `factor/period` • Corrected status byte check condition from `stb & 1 == 1` to `stb & 1 ==` `0` • Removed debugging comments and improved code formatting	+8/-11

Need help?
Type /help how to ... in the comments thread for any questions about Qodo Merge usage.
Check out the documentation for more information.

qodo-merge-demo · 2025-06-11T16:42:06Z

PR Reviewer Guide 🔍

Here are some key observations to aid the review process:

⏱️ Estimated effort to review: 4 🔵🔵🔵🔵⚪
🧪 No relevant tests
🔒 No security concerns identified
⚡ Recommended focus areas for review Possible Issue The comparison operator in time constant selection was changed from `<` to `>`, and the status check condition was inverted from `stb & 1 == 1` to `stb & 1 == 0`. These changes fundamentally alter the logic and could break existing functionality. The correctness of these changes needs validation against the device specifications. tc_index = sum(np.array(self.timeconstants_numbers) > time_constant) # sum over boolean entries if tc_index < len(self.timeconstants): new_tc_key = list(self.timeconstants.keys())[tc_index] else: new_tc_key = "100k" return new_tc_key def auto_time_constant(self, factor=10.0): """ checks the current frequency and adapts the time constant Args: factor: float, factor by which the time constant is at least higher than the period of the signal """ frq = self.get_frequency() period = 1.0 / frq new_tc = factor / period new_tc_key = self.find_best_time_constant_key(new_tc) # sending the new time constant command self.port.write(self.timeconstants[new_tc_key]) self.wait_for_complete() def wait_for_complete(self): starttime = time.time() while True: stb = self.port.port.read_stb() if stb & 1 == 0:
📚 Focus areas based on broader codebase context Formula Inconsistency The auto time constant formula has been changed from `factorperiod` to `factor/period`, which appears to invert the relationship between time constant and signal period. This should be validated against the device specification and existing working implementations to ensure the time constant is correctly calculated relative to the signal frequency. (Ref 7) new_tc = factor / period Reference reasoning:* The RAG content shows a similar device (7280DSP) using `time_constant = 10.0*period` in its adapt method, suggesting multiplication is the standard approach for calculating time constants based on signal periods in lock-in amplifiers.
📄 References Codium-ai/instrument-drivers/src/LockIn-SignalRecovery_7265DSP/main.py [406-444] Codium-ai/instrument-drivers/src/LockIn-SignalRecovery_7265DSP/main.py [115-146] Codium-ai/instrument-drivers/src/LockIn-SignalRecovery_7265DSP/main.py [446-453] Codium-ai/instrument-drivers/src/LockIn-SignalRecovery_7265DSP/main.py [286-314] Codium-ai/instrument-drivers/src/LockIn-SignalRecovery_7265DSP/main.py [680-689] Codium-ai/instrument-drivers/src/LockIn-SignalRecovery_7265DSP/main.py [691-697] Codium-ai/instrument-drivers/src/LockIn-SignalRecovery_7280DSP/main.py [337-384] Codium-ai/instrument-drivers/src/LockIn-SignalRecovery_7280DSP/main.py [118-142]

qodo-merge-demo · 2025-06-11T16:42:48Z

PR Code Suggestions ✨

Explore these optional code suggestions:

Category	Suggestion	Impact
Possible issue	Fix reversed comparison operator logic The comparison operator change from `<` to `>` appears to reverse the intended logic for finding the appropriate time constant index. This could result in selecting an incorrect time constant that's too short for the given value. src/LockIn-SignalRecovery_7265DSP/main.py [508] -tc_index = sum(np.array(self.timeconstants_numbers) > time_constant) # sum over boolean entries +tc_index = sum(np.array(self.timeconstants_numbers) < time_constant) # sum over boolean entries Apply / Chat Suggestion importance[1-10]: 9 __ Why: The suggestion correctly identifies that changing the comparison operator from `<` to `>` inverts the logic for finding the time constant index. The original logic correctly found the index of the first time constant greater than the target value, while the new logic is flawed. This is a critical bug fix.	High
	Correct time constant calculation formula The formula `factor / period` calculates `factor * frequency`, which is inverse to the typical time constant calculation. For proper time constant selection, it should be `factor * period` to ensure the time constant is proportionally longer than the signal period. src/LockIn-SignalRecovery_7265DSP/main.py [528-529] period = 1.0 / frq -new_tc = factor / period +new_tc = factor * period Apply / Chat Suggestion importance[1-10]: 9 __ Why: The suggestion correctly points out a fundamental error in the time constant calculation. The time constant should be proportional to the signal's period (`factor * period`), not its frequency (`factor / period`). The PR introduces a bug that this suggestion fixes, which is critical for the function's correctness.	High
	Fix inverted status byte condition The status byte check logic has been inverted from checking if bit 0 is set (command processing) to checking if it's clear. This change may cause the function to exit prematurely before the command is actually complete. src/LockIn-SignalRecovery_7265DSP/main.py [543-544] -if stb & 1 == 0: +if stb & 1 == 1: break Apply / Chat Suggestion importance[1-10]: 9 __ Why: The suggestion correctly identifies that the PR inverts the logic for checking the operation completion status. The function `wait_for_complete` should wait until a command is finished. The original code `if stb & 1 == 1: break` likely corresponds to breaking when a "complete" or "ready" bit is set, which is a standard hardware communication pattern. The PR's change introduces a likely bug.	High
More

ofir-frd · 2025-06-11T16:46:28Z

/ask How is the wait_for_complete method implemented elsewhere?

qodo-merge-demo · 2025-06-11T16:46:54Z

Ask❓

How is the wait_for_complete method implemented elsewhere?

Answer:

The wait_for_complete method implementations across the codebase follow several common patterns:

Polling with timeout: Most implementations use a while loop that continuously checks a status condition with a timeout mechanism. They typically use time.time() to track elapsed time and break the loop when a timeout is exceeded.
Sleep intervals: Implementations include small sleep intervals (usually 0.01-0.1 seconds) between status checks to avoid excessive CPU usage during polling.
Status checking patterns: Different devices use various status indicators:
- Boolean completion flags (like sweeper.finished())
- Status integers where 0 typically indicates completion
- Bitwise operations on status bytes
Error handling: Most implementations raise exceptions or print warnings when timeouts occur, often providing context about what operation failed.
Progress reporting: Some implementations include progress reporting during the wait period.

The PR's changes to the wait_for_complete method align with these patterns by:

Maintaining the timeout mechanism with a 20-second limit
Using 0.01-second sleep intervals
Correcting the status byte check condition from stb & 1 == 1 to stb & 1 == 0, which follows the common pattern where 0 indicates completion
Raising an exception on timeout with a descriptive message

This correction suggests that the device signals completion when the first bit is 0 rather than 1, which is consistent with how other status checking implementations work where 0 typically represents a "ready" or "complete" state.

📄 References

ofir-frd · 2025-06-11T16:48:35Z

src/LockIn-SignalRecovery_7265DSP/main.py

            stb = self.port.port.read_stb()
-            if stb & 1 == 1:  # first byte indicates whether command is processed or not
+
+            if stb & 1 == 0:
                break
+
            time.sleep(0.01)
            if time.time() - starttime > 20:
                raise Exception("Timeout during wait for completion.")


/implement Make this wait_for_complete method work like it's commonly done in the repo.

Code Implementation 🛠️

Implementation: Refactor the wait_for_complete method to follow common patterns in the repository by using a timeout parameter and implementing a more structured polling loop with proper timeout handling.

Suggested change

stb = self.port.port.read_stb()

if stb & 1 == 1: # first byte indicates whether command is processed or not

if stb & 1 == 0:

break

time.sleep(0.01)

if time.time() - starttime > 20:

raise Exception("Timeout during wait for completion.")

def wait_for_complete(self, timeout=20.0):

"""

Wait for the device to complete the current operation.

Args:

timeout: float, maximum time to wait in seconds

"""

start_time = time.time()

while (time.time() - start_time) < timeout:

stb = self.port.port.read_stb()

if stb & 1 == 0:

break

time.sleep(0.01)

else:

raise Exception("Timeout during wait for completion.")

📄 References
Codium-ai/instrument-drivers/src/Switch-PC_VariableWait/main.py [44-98]

See review comment here

ofir-frd · 2025-06-12T08:55:40Z

/ask How is the wait_for_complete method implemented elsewhere?

qodo-merge-demo · 2025-06-12T08:56:07Z

Ask❓

How is the wait_for_complete method implemented elsewhere?

Answer:

The wait_for_complete method implementations across the codebase follow similar patterns but with different approaches:

Polling with timeout pattern: Most implementations use a while loop that continuously checks a status condition with a timeout mechanism. They typically sleep for short intervals (0.01-0.2 seconds) between checks to avoid busy waiting.
Status checking variations: Different devices use different status indicators:
- Some check module status values (status == 0 for completion)
- Others use progress indicators or finished() methods
- The LockIn driver checks status byte bits using bitwise operations
Timeout handling: All implementations include timeout protection, typically:
- Recording start time with time.time()
- Checking elapsed time in each loop iteration
- Raising exceptions or breaking loops when timeout is exceeded
- Timeout values range from 2-20 seconds depending on the operation
Error handling: Most implementations include proper error handling for timeout scenarios, with descriptive error messages indicating what operation failed to complete.

The PR's changes to the wait_for_complete method align with these patterns - it maintains the polling approach with timeout protection, but fixes the status byte check condition from stb & 1 == 1 to stb & 1 == 0, which appears to correct the logic for detecting when a command has completed processing.

📄 References

ofir-frd added 2 commits June 9, 2025 16:21

Refactor LockIn-SignalRecovery_7265DSP time constant logic

b4861a7

Remove debugging comments from LockIn-SignalRecovery_7265DSP driver

d73bf06

Provide feedback

Saved searches

Use saved searches to filter your results more quickly

Uh oh!

Refactor LockIn-SignalRecovery_7265DSP time constant logic - with RAG #11

Refactor LockIn-SignalRecovery_7265DSP time constant logic - with RAG #11

Uh oh!

ofir-frd commented Jun 11, 2025 •

edited by qodo-merge-demo bot

Loading

Uh oh!

qodo-merge-demo bot commented Jun 11, 2025

Uh oh!

qodo-merge-demo bot commented Jun 11, 2025

Uh oh!

ofir-frd commented Jun 11, 2025

Uh oh!

qodo-merge-demo bot commented Jun 11, 2025

Uh oh!

ofir-frd Jun 11, 2025

Uh oh!

qodo-merge-demo bot Jun 11, 2025

Uh oh!

ofir-frd commented Jun 12, 2025

Uh oh!

qodo-merge-demo bot commented Jun 12, 2025

Uh oh!

Reviewers

Assignees

Labels

Projects

Milestone

Development

Uh oh!

2 participants

Refactor LockIn-SignalRecovery_7265DSP time constant logic - with RAG #11

Are you sure you want to change the base?

Refactor LockIn-SignalRecovery_7265DSP time constant logic - with RAG #11

Uh oh!

Conversation

ofir-frd commented Jun 11, 2025 • edited by qodo-merge-demo bot Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Uh oh!

PR Type

Description

Changes walkthrough 📝

Uh oh!

qodo-merge-demo bot commented Jun 11, 2025

PR Reviewer Guide 🔍

Uh oh!

qodo-merge-demo bot commented Jun 11, 2025

PR Code Suggestions ✨

Uh oh!

ofir-frd commented Jun 11, 2025

Uh oh!

qodo-merge-demo bot commented Jun 11, 2025

Ask❓

Answer:

Uh oh!

ofir-frd Jun 11, 2025

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

qodo-merge-demo bot Jun 11, 2025

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Code Implementation 🛠️

Uh oh!

ofir-frd commented Jun 12, 2025

Uh oh!

qodo-merge-demo bot commented Jun 12, 2025

Ask❓

Answer:

Uh oh!

Reviewers

Assignees

Labels

Projects

Milestone

Development

Uh oh!

2 participants

ofir-frd commented Jun 11, 2025 •

edited by qodo-merge-demo bot

Loading