-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 263
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
Support arbitrary waveform viewer #1002
Conversation
829e97b
to
7a925f8
Compare
We cannot deprecate gtkwave arguments in the next release. We need to first release a version with the new feature, announcing that "old" aliases will be removed in a future version. Then, in a future release, we can remove the deprecated keywords/arguments. Other than that, this looks very interesting. So, if it's ready by the time we want to tag 5.0, we can sure have it merged before. |
The thing I am unsure how to handle are the option strings. Is there some previous example of aliasing those? But if the purpose is to deprecate in the long run, maybe they need to be handled explicitly anyway, so duplicated arguments and then check which has information. |
@oscargus Previously, we've handled them explicitly. Here is an example: Lines 255 to 256 in 2c0b75e
In your case it would be a warning rather than an error |
ecafe6b
to
6acff41
Compare
Now I finally got around to finish this. The news-item summarizes the changes quite good, but brief. It seems like the emitted warnings are filtered, but I cannot really figure out how and where... As a missing waveform viewer now raises after the simulation (which is not ideal, but I couldn't figure out another way to define the waveform viewer in the run-file), I had to remove one test. Let me know if this should be reverted or if there is another way to specify waveform viewer in the run-file. It is of course possible to just limit the choice to surfer or gtkwave. That would simplify things a bit. |
86841d1
to
cff7bad
Compare
Now I have sorted things out (and passed the lint, wasn't easy with the long warning message...). I ended up factoring out the common viewer code to an I'm a bit tempted to create a third class of options, maybe Taking the idea of being able to generate waves without opening the viewer, #1003 and #1042, one may also consider other naming. |
All comments should be fixed. Sorry about that! They are in a separate commit to make it easier to check, but I suggest to squash (I can squash if you do not have it enabled at GitHub). |
Closes #970
Haven't really had time to test this fully, so putting in draft. But since it seems like 5.0 is upcoming, this may be something to consider.
Basically, there is a
--viewer
argument that lets you select a wave form viewer. Also, all--gtkwave-*
arguments are renamed--viewer-*
, but with aliases.(At least that is the idea once fully working.)
Motivated by https://surfer-project.org/ that is beginning to gain some traction. (Although possible to run in the browser there are also native versions.)