-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 1.3k
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
Update dictionary JSON spec field names and examples #2574
Conversation
@bocchino you'll need to review this one! |
```json | ||
{ | ||
"deploymentName": "MyDeployment", | ||
"frameworkVersion": "3.3.2", | ||
"projectVersion": "1.0.0", | ||
"libraryVersions": [] | ||
"libraryVersions": [], |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
As I'm wiring fpp-to-dict in to the CMake system, figuring out how to specify libraryVersions
is giving me some troubles. I think providing an example would be helpful. Here are my questions:
- What is the format we want to use?
libraryName=1.0.0
,[email protected]
,libraryName==1.0.0
etc... ? We probably need to add this to the spec. - Say the library name is very generic e.g.
arduino-i2c
, are we ok with it being impossible to figure out where the library came from unless we can look at the source project? What I'm hinting at here is we could have an optional field e.g.remoteUrl
or something. I don't actually think it would be useful/beneficial, but I just wanted to double check with everyone. - How do we deal with unspecified versions? e.g. a user has created a library locally but it is not a git submodule and/or there is no version to be retrieved.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
This is a good point @thomas-bc. The format of entries in libraryVersions
is not specified in the spec. Also, there is no check done in the fpp-to-dict tool to verify that the libraryVersions input conforms to a certain format.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Just marking things as I notice them
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
This PR looks good to me! It makes the changes we discussed.
Change Description
typeDefinitions
formatSpecifier
toformat
identifier
toname
identifier
toid