Skip to content

does VSCode extension support "options:<custom_yaml_file>" ? #117

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

Open
Pierre-Denis opened this issue Sep 15, 2023 · 5 comments · May be fixed by #128
Open

does VSCode extension support "options:<custom_yaml_file>" ? #117

Pierre-Denis opened this issue Sep 15, 2023 · 5 comments · May be fixed by #128
Labels
question Further information is requested

Comments

@Pierre-Denis
Copy link

Pierre-Denis commented Sep 15, 2023

Hello,

I was wandering if your extension currently support the practical arg "options" offered by Ceedling that allow to merge/load custom configuration to an existing one for a given launch (combination of both your main yaml and a custom one for a given test).

I did not find this information on your documentation.

Thank you in advance.

Bye

@Pierre-Denis Pierre-Denis changed the title does VSCode extension support "options:<custom_yaml_file" ? does VSCode extension support "options:<custom_yaml_file>" ? Sep 15, 2023
@numaru
Copy link
Owner

numaru commented Sep 16, 2023

Nop, it's not supported 😞. For most of the features, the extension acts as a wrapper around the ceedling CLI. But to get some of the info, the project.yml file is parsed and none of the option_paths is followed. To be honest I didn't even knew this feature existed 😅.

@numaru numaru added the question Further information is requested label Sep 16, 2023
@Pierre-Denis
Copy link
Author

Pierre-Denis commented Sep 18, 2023

Ok thank you very much for your answer.
Hope this will be considered in the future as it is very practical to test multiple configuration of the same generic code (eg: subsystem) or Hardware Abstraction Layer based on preprocessing (eg: HAL CHIP MODEL, motor...).
Regards

@JuPrgn
Copy link

JuPrgn commented Dec 19, 2023

This feature would be very appreciated, I have just discovered the extension but my projects are based on a project.yml and project_specific.yml file.

Calling ceedling summary report :

ERROR: Config filepath [:tools][:test_compiler][:executable]['gcc.exe'] does not exist in system search paths.
ERROR: Config filepath [:tools][:test_dependencies_generator][:executable]['gcc.exe'] does not exist in system search paths.
ERROR: Config filepath [:tools][:test_file_preprocessor][:executable]['gcc.exe'] does not exist in system search paths.
ERROR: Config filepath [:tools][:test_file_preprocessor_directives][:executable]['gcc.exe'] does not exist in system search paths.
ERROR: Config filepath [:tools][:test_includes_preprocessor][:executable]['gcc.exe'] does not exist in system search paths.
ERROR: Config filepath [:tools][:test_linker][:executable]['gcc.exe'] does not exist in system search paths.

but calling ceedling project:project_specific.yml summary is working fine as compiler path are specified in specific.yml

@JuPrgn
Copy link

JuPrgn commented Dec 19, 2023

Just modified adapter.js to add project:project_specific.yml to every ceedling cmd

    getCeedlingCommand(args) {
        const line = `ceedling project:project_specific.yml ${args.join(" ")}`;
        return line;
    }

I don't know how VS extension works but I will try to propose a PR to add a setting for this.

@JuPrgn JuPrgn linked a pull request Dec 21, 2023 that will close this issue
@MikeExMachina
Copy link

MikeExMachina commented Mar 21, 2024

Just wanted to chime in that I would love to see support for the "options" feature as well. I usually have multiple HALs for my project to support different hardware builds, options are great for appending the paths of a specific HAL for inclusion in a build. I know that the options feature supports an "export" function (e.g. options:export[filename]) where ceedling will spit out the result of the yaml merger, but it looks like it only works for the "tools" section. That seems like it might be an oversight in the ceedling project.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
question Further information is requested
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging a pull request may close this issue.

4 participants