Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Fixed mist cooling status #538

Merged
merged 1 commit into from
Sep 6, 2022

Conversation

LukasGossmann
Copy link
Contributor

As the title suggests this is a small fix for the status of mist cooling.

Config:
Mist pin is defined in config

Behavior before this fix:
M7 would report correctly
M9 would report correctly
M3 SXXX and M4 SXXX would report mist cooling being enabled even when it isnt

Behavior after this fix:
M7 would report correctly
M9 would report correctly
M3 SXXX and M4 SXXX no longer report mist cooling being enabled

What was happening is that the existence of a mist cooling pin was reported instead of the actual status.

@@ -433,7 +433,7 @@ void report_build_info(const char* line, Print& channel) {
channel << "[VER:" << grbl_version << " FluidNC " << git_info << ":" << line << "]\n";
channel << "[OPT:";
if (config->_coolant->hasMist()) {
channel << "M"; // TODO Need to deal with M8...it could be disabled
Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

The status of the cooling doesn't matter since OPT: reports compile time (or in this case runtime config) options and not the actual status.

@bdring
Copy link
Owner

bdring commented Aug 3, 2022

@LukasGossmann Do you have a special need for an OPT response? The concept does not fit FluidNC very well and we are thinking about dropping the command entirely.

FluidNC does not really have many compile time options. All of the info in OPT (and more) is available elsewhere. Why show mist and not flood?

@MitchBradley
Copy link
Collaborator

To be more precise, we are thinking about dropping the OPT response to the build info command. The command would still exist, and would return only the VER line.

@LukasGossmann
Copy link
Contributor Author

@bdring No i don't have any need for that as long as UGS Platform works without that :)
I just went ahead and removed that comment since it was a TODO for something that is not part of the grbl interface spec and i was modifying that file anyway so might as well.

@MitchBradley MitchBradley merged commit 2504ed7 into bdring:Devt Sep 6, 2022
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

3 participants