SoftI2C is asking for an id parameter and it should not

[couillonnade]

SoftI2C stub is asking for an id parameter. This only exists for hardware I2C.

This is correct:
t = machine.SoftI2C(scl=machine.Pin(4),sda=machine.Pin(5),freq=400000)

This is incorrect:

t = machine.SoftI2C(0,scl=machine.Pin(4),sda=machine.Pin(5),freq=400000)
Traceback (most recent call last):
File "", line 1, in 
TypeError: extra keyword arguments given

Pylance is not happy with it:

i2c = machine.SoftI2C(scl=machine.Pin(sclpin),
sda=machine.Pin(sdapin),
freq=i2cfreq)

Expected 1 more positional argumentPylance[reportGeneralTypeIssues](https://github.com/microsoft/pyright/blob/main/docs/configuration.md#reportGeneralTypeIssues)
(module) machine

It seems that this has changed in v1.14 in 2021 so this is quite old since the latest is 1.19
https://github.com/micropython/micropython/releases

Breaking changes in this release are:
machine.I2C and machine.SPI constructors are changed when using software-based I2C and SPI. Code that constructed I2C/SPI peripherals in the following way will need to be changed (or else their use will emit a warning which will eventually be an error):

machine.I2C(-1, ...) -> machine.SoftI2C(...)
machine.I2C(scl=scl, sda=sda) -> machine.SoftI2C(scl=scl, sda=sda)

machine.SPI(-1, ...) -> machine.SoftSPI(...)
machine.SPI(sck=sck, mosi=mosi, miso=miso)
-> machine.SoftSPI(sck=sck, mosi=mosi, miso=miso)

[couillonnade]

Sorry, wrong repo.

[Josverl]

If this is for micropython stubs then I could move the issue, but not sure if I can understand the question or issue withiuth details of the port board and version of the stubs in that case

[couillonnade]

I am using Pico-W-Stub with vscode and when machine.SoftI2C, Pylance ask for one more parameter (the id).

umachine has SoftI2C class with this:
def __init__(self, id: int, /, *, scl: Pin, sda: Pin, freq: int = 400_000):

However, the id parameter should not be there. Removing it solves Pylance error.
I am not really familiar with the structure of stubs nor a Python guy so please let me know if this is clear or not.

[Josverl]

Those stubs are not maintained by me, and are indeed incorrect.

I think mine are correct,
    def __init__(self, scl, sda, *, freq=400000, timeout=50000) -> None:

It should be possible to reconfigure your project to use the more up to date stubs

And/or raise this with the Pico maintainer

[couillonnade]

Thanks! I figured out it was not the right repo that's why I closed it. I already raise it to the maintainer but no feedback so far.

I'll read how to switch to your stubs and replace it automatically.

[Josverl]

NP, happy to help

[couillonnade]

Quick question about the stub since I could not find answer in the docs: why are there both init (initialize) and init function ? Not sure about the logic behind the duplicate def init()?

[Josverl]

All classes should have an init
I try to deduce the parameter signature from the documentation of the class

https://docs.micropython.org/en/latest/library/machine.I2C.html#machine.SoftI2C

class machine.SoftI2C(scl, sda, *, freq=400000, timeout=50000)

The I2C class also has an init method documented, with a slightly different signature

I2C.init(scl, sda, *, freq=400000)

Perhaps this is a Documentation error?

Have you tested if the SoftI2C class accepts/has both methods?

On the board firmware I find the SoftI2C method is reported as having the init method

https://github.com/Josverl/micropython-stubs/blob/main/stubs/micropython-v1_19_1-rp2/machine.py#L221-L222

[couillonnade]

You are right and the documentation is right. I did not see it at first because I only looked at RP2 port and not the general documentation!

[Josverl]

Do you have a link to the page with the wrong info?
Then I can send a PR to correct the docs

[couillonnade]

I searched but what I see now is correct. The only thing I can think about is I may have looked at an older version of the doc. Thanks for your patience!

[Josverl]

No problem 👍