PR to support a more flexible camera naming.

[slactjohnson]

Description

Modify the btms to use a new property of the btms_config.SourcePosition class, introduced in this PR on pcdsdevices: pcdshub/pcdsdevices#1265

Motivation and Context

closes #15

How Has This Been Tested?

Tested interactively in the laser hall.

Where Has This Been Documented?

This PR.

[tangkong]

The version handling here broke for some reason, which is why the CI is failing

[tangkong]

This might be related to the comment zach made in #9 about _version.py being auto-generated and not being needed to be tracked in the repository.

Our cookiecutter is setup to have a version.py file (no underscore) instead of _version.py (with underscore). Can you try changing the name of that, and modifying __init__.py to match the cookiecutter version?

[tangkong]

Playing around with this locally, I think this breaks because the tag format is not recognized by setuptools_scm. The prepended R breaks the tag parsing.

> /cds/group/pcds/pyps/conda/py39/envs/pcds-5.8.4/lib/python3.9/site-packages/setuptools_scm/version.py(210)meta()
    208     node_date: date | None = None,
    209 ) -> ScmVersion:
--> 210     parsed_version = _parse_tag(tag, preformatted, config)
    211     log.info("version %s -> %s", tag, parsed_version)
    212     assert parsed_version is not None, "Can't parse version %s" % tag

ipdb> tag
'R1.0.0'

ipdb> _parse_tag('1.0.0', preformatted, config)
<Version('1.0.0')>

Are we committed to RX.X.X as the tag format? Or could we use 1.0.0?

[slactjohnson]

If prefixing with 'R' is problematic, then I'm happy to change it. I just used the 'Rx.y.z' format because that's historically how we've tagged our IOC releases. We can still name the release directory "R.x.y.z" if we want.

[tangkong]

Unfortunately the 'Rx.y.z' format isn't seen anywhere else from what I've seen. Changing the release tag format is the best path forward for this python repo at least.

For the purposes of this PR, we can ignore the CI and bypass the checks

[slactjohnson]

Thanks! I'll make this ready for review then and make a new tag without the 'R' after the merge.

[tangkong]

Requesting a review from @ZLLentz to double check my opinion on the tag / versioning issue

[ZLLentz]

RE: tag/versioning issue, python has a strict, explicit spec for version identifiers. Details here: https://packaging.python.org/en/latest/specifications/version-specifiers

Summary:

• Things like 1.2.0 are allowed
• Lots of specifiers and guidance for pre-releases, alpha versions, etc.
• If you put a letter before your version number, it must be a lowercase v

[ZLLentz]

You should add this file exactly as-is: https://github.com/pcdshub/pcdsdevices/blob/master/pcdsdevices/version.py

To act as version proxy between installed/dev versions

[ZLLentz]

This change should be undone

[ZLLentz]

The core change here is 👍 just the packaging stuff

[ZLLentz]

I think everything is good here, if you merge and tag we can see if the tag build has similar issues or not

[tangkong]

👍

[slactjohnson]

Thanks. It seems like I do not possess the power to merge without approving review and passing tests

[tangkong]

Builds after the new, compliant tag name look good. Now only failing on a pypi / conda deployment we haven't setup 🎉