707 add visr b01 1 as a beamline with devices

[stan-dot]

Fixes #707

Instructions to reviewer on how to test:

1. make sure dodal connect b-01-1 is successful
2. panda and manta should connect (skipping the stage for now)

Checks for reviewer

• Would the PR title make sense to a scientist on a set of release notes
• If a new device has been added does it follow the standards
• If changing the API for a pre-existing device, ensure that any beamlines using this device have updated their Bluesky plans accordingly
• Have the connection tests for the relevant beamline(s) been run via dodal connect ${BEAMLINE}

[codecov]

Codecov Report

All modified and coverable lines are covered by tests ✅

Project coverage is 95.02%. Comparing base (44803d5) to head (f0d3dfc).
Report is 1 commits behind head on main.

Additional details and impacted files

@@            Coverage Diff             @@
##             main     #708      +/-   ##
==========================================
+ Coverage   95.00%   95.02%   +0.01%     
==========================================
  Files         116      117       +1     
  Lines        4744     4762      +18     
==========================================
+ Hits         4507     4525      +18     
  Misses        237      237              

☔ View full report in Codecov by Sentry.
📢 Have feedback on the report? Share it here.

[stan-dot]

this is still not connecting :(

[DiamondJoseph]

Is there a panda on this beamline? I don't see it on the beamline synoptic screen, nor is there a soft-ioc for it in kubernetes

[stan-dot]

yes, there is. there is aan argocd migration going on at the moment.

@marcelldls mentioned it shouldn't take too long

[DiamondJoseph]

Realised I was looking at BL01B: is VISR 01B or 01C? There's no synoptic screen for the latter.

[stan-dot]

@DiamondJoseph , ViSR is the C variant and it does not have an epics screen

[stan-dot]

panda is supposed to be off at the moment

[stan-dot]

trying to fix manta connect errors, pending comment from @marcelldls

[stan-dot]

connects ok

[stan-dot]

@DominicOram is the use of the force override for the non-standard beamline name ok here?

[DominicOram]

@DominicOram is the use of the force override for the non-standard beamline name ok here?

Really get_beamline_name is just an abstraction around getting the BEAMLINE env variable. So why do you need to force it? Is there no BEAMLINE env defined for VISR? Or you want to be able to connect to VISR from other beamlines?

Either way, it's probably better to just do BL = "c01" rather than pass a parameter that basically makes the function a null-op

[stan-dot]

@DominicOram this is quite ready now

out of date

[DominicOram]

Great, one question otherwise good.