search

timmbogner / Farm-Data-Relay-System

A system that uses ESP-NOW, LoRa, and other protocols to transport sensor data in remote areas without relying on WiFi.
MIT License
507 stars 114 forks source link

Dev: Cleaned up naming of configuration files #57

Closed Gulpman closed 2 years ago

Gulpman commented 2 years ago

Having a consistant naming scheme helps in preventing errors or thinking too long about what has to go where.

Therefore I refactored the names of the configuration files for sensors and gateways as a first step:

Added some comments to the files as well. Also added some comments as well as the example implementation https://github.com/timmbogner/Farm-Data-Relay-System/pull/29#issuecomment-1179386143 of the Universal_Gateway from @Devilbinder.

timmbogner commented 2 years ago

I think another u_gateway folder will just add to confusion, but I moved it to the main u_gateway folder for now. d37fdec

Something I should maybe announce is that I'm currently phasing out the old sensor sketch for the new library. I realized I need to do this before jumping into the packet confirmation changes. The new gateway needs help with testing... do you guys think I should make another pinned announcement asking people to help @Devilbinder with that?

Also maybe you guys can confirm my plan... make a new branch for those changes, then open a pull request to merge that into dev. That will open a PR where we can discuss, etc right? .

Gulpman commented 2 years ago

I think another u_gateway folder will just add to confusion, but I moved it to the main u_gateway folder for now. d37fdec Something I should maybe announce is that I'm currently phasing out the old sensor sketch for the new library. I realized I need to do this before jumping into the packet confirmation changes.

Great to hear that. I'm a big fan of getting rid of the v1-based stuff in the dev-branch and clean-up / consistency as highest priority. Actually I'm already working on that - just waiting for this pull-request to go through.

The Universal_Gatway code is lacking the usage of global configuration atm. After that has been implemented and testing was successful we can update the example files with the universal code. This would be a perfect point in time to merge the dev branch to the main branch.

The new gateway needs help with testing... do you guys think I should make another pinned announcement asking people to help @Devilbinder with that?

I would wait till the development on the Universal_Gateway is finished . If we consider it stable and fully functional other test users can be activated. You don't want testers to find obvious things - you want them to find the non-obvious stuff :)

Also maybe you guys can confirm my plan... make a new branch for those changes, then open a pull request to merge that into dev. That will open a PR where we can discuss, etc right? .

I do not know what the best practice on github projects is, but from the gut I would say we do refactor the code in the current dev branch untill functionality is the same as in the main branch but leverages the Universal classes as a base and got rid of redundancies. After that the dev branch is merged to the main branch. From that point on in dev new development (like package ack etc. ) will be done and in main only bugs will be fixed and minor features (as new fdrs_datatypes) will be implemented.