Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Feature request: Machine-readable description of build config options #2989

Open
mk-pmb opened this issue Dec 31, 2019 · 11 comments
Open

Feature request: Machine-readable description of build config options #2989

mk-pmb opened this issue Dec 31, 2019 · 11 comments

Comments

@mk-pmb
Copy link
Contributor

mk-pmb commented Dec 31, 2019

Missing feature

Let's make the comments in app/include/user_*.h more machine-readable:

  • macro name
  • default value
  • category
  • importance level or sth.
  • short description
  • (optional) detailed description
  • Possible values
    • (optional) short description
    • (optional) detailed description

In case we already have such info, let's put a hint where to find it on top of the header files. And establish a mechanism for keeping them in sync.

Justification

I'd like to make a config wizard. That wizard, at a minimum, should be able to determine whether it's understanding of available options is still compatible with the currently checked-out version of the firmware. Would be nice if it could also fall back to the maintainer's help texts if it cannot find localized/optimized help texts from a user-preferred source.

Workarounds

If it turns out we don't have such info, I might have to bake my own.

@mk-pmb
Copy link
Contributor Author

mk-pmb commented Jan 1, 2020

Progess: I compiled short descriptions for all documented modules. Preparations for categorization.

@HHHartmann
Copy link
Member

That sounds like a good idea. There is also a possible related issue #386 .
Please also note that in the near future configuration will be changed for esp8266 to work as in esp32, So editing the user_config will be history then.

@mk-pmb
Copy link
Contributor Author

mk-pmb commented Jan 1, 2020

Can you/someone estimate how far away that future is?

@marcelstoer
Copy link
Member

in the near future configuration will be changed for esp8266 to work as in esp32

Cool, who is working on that? It's the first time I hear this. I was also going to propose to @mk-pmb that before he reinvents the wheel he should look into what ESP-IDF does with Kconfig.

@HHHartmann
Copy link
Member

I tried to find where I read it but can't. Seems that I didn't read close enough. It is between #1657 (comment) and a testrun to integrate and build the two variants in one repo by someone (don't remember who) that I got that impression.
So sorry for the noise.

@TerryE
Copy link
Collaborator

TerryE commented Jan 31, 2020

in the near future configuration will be changed for esp8266 to work as in esp32

Cool, who is working on that?

This came up in some discussion between Johny and me, but ATM @jmattsson has even less bandwidth on NodeMCU than I do.

@stale
Copy link

stale bot commented Jan 31, 2021

This issue has been automatically marked as stale because it has not had recent activity. It will be closed if no further activity occurs. Thank you for your contributions.

@stale stale bot added the stale label Jan 31, 2021
@mk-pmb
Copy link
Contributor Author

mk-pmb commented Jan 31, 2021

Any news on this?

@stale stale bot removed the stale label Jan 31, 2021
@jmattsson
Copy link
Member

jmattsson commented Jan 31, 2021 via email

@stale
Copy link

stale bot commented Apr 16, 2022

This issue has been automatically marked as stale because it has not had recent activity. It will be closed if no further activity occurs. Thank you for your contributions.

@stale stale bot added the stale label Apr 16, 2022
@mk-pmb
Copy link
Contributor Author

mk-pmb commented Apr 16, 2022

Is anyone still working on this, or has it on their todo?

@stale stale bot removed the stale label Apr 16, 2022
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

5 participants