Updated and refined documentation #2760
Conversation
cmaglie
added
type: enhancement
cmaglie
requested review from
alessio-perugini,
per1234,
umbynos and
MatteoPologruto
Co-authored-by: Alessio Perugini <[email protected]>
docs/platform-specification.md
Outdated
| ``` | ||
| {directories.data}/packages/arduino/hardware/avr/1.2.3/... | ||
| {directories.data}/packages/arduino/hardware/sam/1.4.5/... | ||
| {directories.data}/packages/foo/hardware/avr/1.0.2/... |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Would it make more sense to use something else than "avr" here (and below)? It looks strange when you have three hardware vendors, but all three manufacture the same "architecture" avr, as avr is specific only to a specific vendor.
Use some other vendor/architecture combination instead for the foo and bar examples.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I've updated the PR with a real example (with more architecture/vendors combination)
|
I also noticed that if I install a platform manually in Example:
The problem is however, that I had a new version in Is this a separate bug? In that it is possible to install a platform manually, and it is seen in the menu, but the actual new additions to the manual installation are not shown? Also it might be good to mention in these docs what happens if you have the same |
Currently, if there are two matching platforms the one installed in the sketchbook should take precedence... but since you're not able to see the new board definitions there could be a regression, I'll check this out.
we use for example:
This way there is no confusion and both platforms (the original and the "dev") are visible in the IDE.
Yes good point. |
This was not the case for me. I only saw the one as you see in the picture above. |
| ``` | ||
|
|
||
| If the same platform were manually installed by the user, he should have unpacked them inside the following directories: | ||
| In this example three architectures have been installed from the vendor `arduino` (`avr`, `esp32` and `nrf52`), and one | ||
| from `adafruit` and `esp32` (`nrf52` and `esp32` respectively). Note that the vendor `esp32` has the same name of the |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
nit: has the same name of the -> has the same name as the
Please check if the PR fulfills these requirements
See how to contribute
before creating one)
our contributing guidelines
UPGRADING.mdhas been updated with a migration guide (for breaking changes)configuration.schema.jsonupdated if new parameters are added.What kind of change does this PR introduce?
What is the current behavior?
What is the new behavior?
Does this PR introduce a breaking change, and is titled accordingly?
Other information
Fix #2753