StopWatch: add persistence #2141
Conversation
|
Build checks have not completed. Possible reasons for this are:
|
|
@FintasticMan Can you trigger CI? |
|
Added a fix for a minor issue: after exiting StopWatch in the |
codingjourney
force-pushed
the
stopwatch-persistence
branch
from
605cba9
to
5d97a2e
Compare
|
By the way, I've noticed this PR breaks InfiniSim. Does that have to be adapted before things get merged in InfiniTime? I don't mind looking into it, it's just that the build setup seems a bit more involved (I went with the Docker method for InfinTime and that's super smooth). |
|
Yeah it's good practice to get an InfiniSim PR up and waiting if a PR here will break it (annoyingly the CI has given up again so I can't easily see). I haven't used the docker method so I can't comment on that but provided you're on Linux getting a build environment up and running shouldn't be too bad. |
|
I've created PR #163 for InfiniSim. Necessary changes were trivial. Functionality in InfiniSim seems to work as intended. |
|
Great :) |
codingjourney
force-pushed
the
stopwatch-persistence
branch
from
f045b67
to
0195a1c
Compare
* more consistent function names * lapCapacity as constexpr * LastLap returns std::optional * simplified handling of TickType_t values * removed unused methods * minor fix in lap rendering
codingjourney
force-pushed
the
stopwatch-persistence
branch
from
ac6b39f
to
b5bef6c
Compare
| if (lap) { | ||
| TimeSeparated laptime = ConvertTicksToTimeSegments(lap->timeSinceStart); | ||
| char buffer[16]; | ||
| sprintf(buffer, "#%2d %2d:%02d.%02d\n", lap->number, laptime.mins, laptime.secs, laptime.hundredths); |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Maybe use snprintf with the buffersize fixed here? Since the number of laps can now exceed two digits the length is now variable and could overflow the buffer
Also, do you think the hour could be fit in the lap time here? I'm not sure how it'll look, but I think there might be enough horizontal space
This PR solves Issue #303 and is based on previous work by @desttinghim (PR #783 ) and @pptime02 (PR #1410 ). Well, it's actually just a re-base of #1410 onto the current main branch. I did my best not to disrupt functionality implemented on main in the past 2 years. Any feedback is appreciated.