Skip to content
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

The firmware version is not reported correctly #92

Closed
krichardsson opened this issue Feb 17, 2016 · 3 comments
Closed

The firmware version is not reported correctly #92

krichardsson opened this issue Feb 17, 2016 · 3 comments
Assignees
Labels
Milestone

Comments

@krichardsson
Copy link
Contributor

In release 2016.02, the firmware version is not reported correctly to the client.

The version is reported to the client as parameters in the "firmware" section. All values are 0 in this release.

@krichardsson
Copy link
Contributor Author

The versions seems to be correct when building a local repository. Git revisions and so on are reported Ok.

@krichardsson krichardsson self-assigned this Mar 10, 2016
@krichardsson
Copy link
Contributor Author

The problem seems to be in versionTemplate.py, in extract_information_from_build_tool(). The revision is simply always set to 0.
The question is what we want? We could base the revisions on git hashes or the tag. I think hashes have been used earlier but I suggest we use the tag instead.
Tags are on the format "2016.02" or "2016.02.1" where "02" is the month and "1" a sequence number. We could encode this data into

const uint32_t V_REVISION_0=2016;
const uint16_t V_REVISION_1=0x0201;

where 0x0201 is composed from month and sequence nr. For "2016.11.15" we would use

const uint32_t V_REVISION_0=2016;
const uint16_t V_REVISION_1=0x0B0F;

This would allow us to make 256 releases every month which should be sufficient also for a continuous delivery like scenario.

Another option would be to add a third revision parameter for the last part of the tag.

@krichardsson krichardsson added this to the next release milestone Mar 10, 2016
krichardsson added a commit that referenced this issue Mar 10, 2016
…m. The params sent to the client contains the git hash regardless of if it is a release or local build.
@krichardsson
Copy link
Contributor Author

Using same functionality regardless of build. The params will contain the git hash.

This is unambiguous but not very user friendly. Maybe we should consider to add more parameters that are human readable?

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

No branches or pull requests

1 participant