The folder described behaviour and listed points, but nothing showed the
shape of the program. ARCHITECTURE.md covers what a reader needs before
opening any ST file:
- counts up front: 4 function blocks, 3 programs, 1 task, 69 located
variables, 65 process globals, 69 Modbus points, 1 comms interface
- the one architectural rule - only 10_globals.st and 50_prog_io_mux.st
may touch located variables, enforced by build.py - and why it is what
lets identical control logic run against a simulation or a real plant
- a layer diagram: Modbus slave / IO_MUX / CONTROL + its four FBs /
SIMULATION, with the direction of every flow
- what each of the 10 source files owns, with line counts
- execution order per build, and why SIMULATION runs first
- the 100 ms task interval is not independently adjustable: four POUs
integrate against a hardcoded SCAN_S := 0.1
- one comms interface, which is a runtime plugin rather than program
code - the reason 502 can be published and still refuse connections
- the 69 points by function code, with the %MW HR1024 warning
Adds what the folder was missing for someone picking it up cold.
as-built/ the STruC++ output copied out of the live container - the C++
the PLC is actually executing, plus program.st and the Modbus
buffer config. The running image was made with docker commit
and exists in no registry, so this is the only other copy of
the compiled form.
Verified while copying: the deployed program.st matches
build/wrps.st generated from src/. Identical POU structure,
ZERO differences in non-declaration lines. src/ is genuinely
canonical and the running PLC agrees with it.
VERSIONS.md every version read from the running system, not from
documentation: runtime v4.1.10, STruC++ 0.6.2, Editor
4.2.11, Debian 12, g++ 12.2, pymodbus 3.11.2, CI
Server R1.03. Plus which plugins are enabled -
ethercat is on for no reason - and a v3-vs-v4 table,
since most OpenPLC guidance online is for v3 and the
%MW HR1024 change silently produces wrong data.
GETTING-STARTED.md three questions answered in a page: how to modify the
program, how to stand up a new PLC container from
scratch, how to move this one. Includes the compose
file, the Editor steps that are not generated and are
always missed, and a symptom-to-document table.
The PLC program from the old repo's 04-plc/, flattened into one folder and
checked against the running system.
Verified during the move:
- build.py regenerates register-map.csv byte-identically (69 points)
- polled the live PLC: the SIMULATION build is what is deployed and
running, %MW21=2 wet weather, values moving, run hours accumulating
- addresses, %MW HR1024 segmentation and %QW17/%QW7 signedness all
match the map
Corrections against the old repo:
- 10_globals.st header cited WRPS-CTL-002 (the FDS); it means CTL-003
- build.py wrote the map to its parent directory; now beside itself
- deploy/README.md was a single-file folder; now DEPLOY.md
- dropped the empty editor-devices/remote/
- README no longer claims the simulation build is uncompiled - it is
the one running
Two open items are now stated plainly rather than buried:
- none of the 20 acceptance tests in CTL-003 have ever been run
- the OpenPLC Editor lived only on the retired dev-ubuntu host, so
there is currently NO route to deploy a new program (DEPLOY.md 0)
Documents the setpoint distinction: IO_MUX seeds %MW defaults once at
first scan, operators retune them live, and that tuning exists only in
the container volume - a restart reverts it.
