Using different veto arbiter for K3, adding MR1K3 IN as a veto for K4 #131
Conversation
This file contains 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
|
Opened a new pull request to avoid merge conflict in xti |
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Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.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.
Description
Adding a separate veto arbiter for K3 devices that uses fast fault output three
Adding a new veto condition for K4 devices when MR1K3 is IN
Motivation and Context
Meant to close #130
https://jira.slac.stanford.edu/browse/ECS-6866
https://jira.slac.stanford.edu/browse/ECS-5642
How Has This Been Tested?
N/A
Where Has This Been Documented?
N/A
Screenshots (if appropriate):
Pre-merge checklist
Always Newestpre-commit(alternativelypre-commit run --all-files)