Skip to content

Remove the parameter queue and use the write_pending flag instead #237

Open
Guzz-T wants to merge 4 commits intoBouni:mainfrom
Guzz-T:issue/221/remove-queue
Open

Remove the parameter queue and use the write_pending flag instead #237
Guzz-T wants to merge 4 commits intoBouni:mainfrom
Guzz-T:issue/221/remove-queue

Conversation

@Guzz-T
Copy link
Contributor

@Guzz-T Guzz-T commented Feb 5, 2026 •
edited
Loading

With these changes, the data to be written is stored directly in the field object, so that the values can also be set directly in the field via value.

This is indirectly a breaking change, as the value of the field changes when set() is called. This was not the case before. @Bouni, was there a specific reason why it was implemented this way?

Previously:

parameters.get(2)        >> 1°C
parameters.set(2, 2) 
parameters.get(2)        >> 1°C

Now:

p2 = parameters.get(2)   >> 1°C
parameters.set(2, 2)
parameters.get(2)        >> 2°C
p2.value = 3
p2                       >> 3°C

Relates to #221

Guzz-T added 4 commits February 5, 2026 23:40
@Guzz-T
Remove the parameter queue and use the write_pending flag instead
267bf18 
With these changes, the data to be written is stored directly in the field object, so that the values can also be set directly in the field via `value`.
@Guzz-T
Move the set method into the data_vector base class
3e47f1e
@Guzz-T
Add a check_for_write() method as replacement for the previously remo…
21c5023 
…ved checks within set()
@Guzz-T
Update README.md
b73590e
@github-actions
Copy link

github-actions bot commented Feb 5, 2026

Coverage

Coverage Report
FileStmtsMissCoverMissing
luxtronik
   __main__.py25250%3–66
   collections.py125199%304
   datatypes.py412299%61, 133
   discover.py58198%63
luxtronik/cfi
   interface.py1681392%80–93, 243–244, 249
luxtronik/definitions
   __init__.py237199%172
luxtronik/scripts
   __init__.py35586%7–16, 51
   discover_shi.py60600%8–98
   dump_cfi.py14657%18–25, 29
   dump_shi.py15660%21–28, 32
   performance_shi.py63630%7–89
   update_screen.py1058222%6, 20–41, 46–48, 51–61, 64, 70–75, 78, 81–85, 88–92, 95–97, 100–103, 106–111, 115–116, 119–126, 129–136
   watch_cfi.py321650%36–47, 50–56, 60
   watch_shi.py331652%38–49, 52–58, 62
luxtronik/shi
   contiguous.py121298%224–225
TOTAL243929988% 

Tests Skipped Failures Errors Time
381 0 💤 0 ❌ 0 🔥 35.728s ⏱️

kbabioch
kbabioch reviewed Feb 16, 2026
View reviewed changes
@Guzz-T
Copy link
Contributor Author

Guzz-T commented Feb 26, 2026

Can we continue here?

@kbabioch
Copy link
Collaborator

kbabioch commented Feb 27, 2026

I'm happy to press the "merge" button, but if I understand this correctly, you would like to have some feedback from @Bouni first?

@Bouni
Copy link
Owner

Bouni commented Feb 27, 2026

Hey guys, do not wait for my OK, you do so much good work on this library and can so much better decide if a change is good or not. For me the important part is that a second pair of eyes have looked at the changes, just to catch possible problems.

Breaking changes are not a problem in my eyes, as long as we release a version with a number and a changlog that clearly indicate this.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Reviewers

@kbabioch kbabioch kbabioch left review comments

At least 1 approving review is required to merge this pull request.

Assignees

No one assigned

Labels

None yet

Projects

None yet

Milestone

No milestone

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

3 participants

@Guzz-T @kbabioch @Bouni