darktable-org / darktable-org/darktable
Mismatch between example documentation and actual practice
Nobody has claimed this yet.
- Dominant language
- C
- Stars
- 13.1k
- Forks
- 1.4k
- Avg merge
- 22h 14m
- Merged PRs (30d)
- 198
Description
As far as I can tell, the documentation for how the legacy_params function should be written is quite limited, and canonical source of info is its implementation and related comments in useless.c.
There, the main comment says (among other things):
// Upgrading from an older version than the previous one should always
// go through all in between versions (unless there was a bug) so that
// the end result will always be the same.
However, that does not seem to be the strategy adopted by many/most modules, which instead directly from various old versions to the newest.
So, is this actually recommended?
- If not, maybe that comment should be dropped.
- If yes, maybe that should be surfaced in a more visible place, such as
iop/iop_api.h, and/or https://github.com/darktable-org/darktable/blob/master/dev-doc/IOP_Module_API.md
Contributor guide
First steps
- Read the whole issue, then the project's contributing guide.
- Comment on the issue to say you are picking it up — it saves two people doing the same work.
- Fork the repository and make your change on a branch.
- Open a pull request that references the issue number.
Research direction
Start by reading the legacy_params comment and implementation in useless.c, then compare that guidance with the legacy_params practices used by modules. Review iop/iop_api.h and dev-doc/IOP_Module_API.md as possible documentation locations. Done means the recommended upgrade strategy is resolved and the relevant comment or documentation consistently communicates it.
Written by the indexing model from the issue text.
Assessment
- Tech stack
- c
- Domain
- documentation
- Issue type
- Documentation
- Difficulty
- 3/5
- Estimated time
- 1-2 days
- Activity status
- Active
- Clarity
- Needs clarification
- Newbie friendliness
- 48/100