-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 1k
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
Community appreciation #735
Conversation
build works locally, but only on armhf hardware.
a) I wouldn't revert 1. and 2. if it can cause hassle for those that have already updated their sketches. We should've maybe said better that behavior changes, but sketches should contain the version of library they were tested with. b) c) Is there a way |
Both points shouldn't cause any hassle with either old or new sketches. Point 1 actually aligns with what the datasheet says about PoR condition (still recommend calling Point 2 would cure problems that some people are experiencing with sketches prior to v1.3.11; namely those that aren't aware the docs and examples indicate ACK payloads require dynamic payloads feature.
The true problem is that using dynamic payloads (pre-req for ACK payloads) requires configuring 2 registers (DYNPD & FEATURE -- unfortunately the nRF24 slave device doesn't support configuring sequential registers with 1 SPI transaction), so I don't think performance can be improved. Additionally, when dynamic payloads are enabled, RX nodes without dynamic payloads enabled cannot receive payloads from TX nodes with dynamic payloads enabled, so it's probably best to not call
Yes! Can't believe I didn't add that. Is that what you call "footgun"? Maybe also add a comment to examples about this? This requirement is nothing new, so adjusting any release notes seems redundant to me. Actually, there is a code snippet in |
@TMRh20 I think a new release is in order. I can retroactively adjust the release description with my current privileges if that makes it easier for you. For my next trick, I want to overload EDIT: Please see #737 first |
Sure, I added info about my change, so if you would add info for yours that would be great!
Cool, will wait to see how it comes out |
done. I get a notification about releases also, so I will continue to add info about my submitted changes in the future (if necessary). |
This PR fixes a couple changes I made in #691 that seemed to upset community members concerning backward compatibility.
begin()
noticed in write(...) returns false on sucess unless stopListening() is called first. #734enableAckPayloads()
also enables dynamic payloads for pipe 1 automatically. Reddit and Arduino forum users have gotten quite upset about this one (to which my reaction has been "RTFD" or "pay more attention to examples' comments").Concerning WiringPi build
Also, I'm disabling the WiringPi CI build to discontinue "Linux build CI failed" notifications that I keep getting. I've successfully built WiringPi locally on my RPi2 (and subsequently RF24 built successfully) using upstream WiringPi repo... I think that libcrypt.so.1 is not available for cross-compilation on x86 Ubuntu, but it seems to ship with armhf-based OSs (like Raspberry Pi OS). Pretty sure that libcrypt is part of the libc6 std libs, but I may be wrong. Lastly, I've changed the Linux build workflow to use the upstream WiringPi fork per @CoRfr recommendation (but it is disabled anyway).