Added a warning about RF24 preprocessor flag being deprecated #1159
Conversation
Fixed a warning about deprecated definition
| @@ -270,7 +270,7 @@ | |||
| */ | |||
| // legacy | |||
| #ifdef MY_RADIO_NRF24 | |||
| //MY_RADIO_NRF24 is deprecated | |||
| #warning MY_RADIO_NRF24 is deprecated, use MY_RADIO_RF24 instead. | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
In addition to a compiler warning when defined, I think it might also be a good idea to add a doxygen block marking the define deprecated (see https://www.stack.nl/~dimitri/doxygen/manual/commands.html#cmddeprecated)
Something along the lines of
/**
* @def MY_RADIO_NRF24
* @brief Define this to use a RF24-based radio transport for sensor network communication.
* @deprecated This flag is deprecated and replaced by @ref MY_RADIO_RF24
*/
//#define MY_RADIO_RF24
To allow doxygen to pick up the define, it also need to be defined below under the doxygen specific segment (see a7299d9#diff-cf14b6301beb3a4dbaded9b95bb190feL2295)
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Hmm, okay, but where exactly do I add it?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
If you don't have doxygen locally, you can examine the results from the build server by clicking "Details" next to the "Toll gate (Documentation)" check below.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
@Avamander is there anything we can do to assist you?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
@Avamander Please submit this PR against mysensors:development, not mysensors:development-3.0.0
|
Closing this PR targeted against the wrong branch. @Avamander, please open it again against the development-branch with the comments above fixed. |
Fixes #1123