Misc fixes: no match, timed_enable_events, FAST Nano RGB #1760
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
This PR contains a few miscellaneous fixes I've collected recently.
No Match Option
This PR changes the label of a 0% match possibility from "off" to "Never", which more accurately clarifies the no-chance-of-match and avoids ambiguity of Match mode being disabled versus enabled but never going to match.
Timed Enable Events
This PR adds a config option for
timed_enable_events
for coils that support timed enable pulses. The coil code itself already supports timed_enable events, but without them in the config spec they could never be triggered. This change adds this option to the spec.Fast NANO RGB
The recent refactor of FAST interface code by @toomanybrians includes improvements to the startup and reset flows. Unfortunately the legacy Nano RGB controller can have trouble with the reset command when processing other shows, leading to hangs. This PR changes the reset command for the Nano RGB controller to be fire-and-forget instead of wait-for-confirmation, to avoid hangs for the few users (probably just me) using the latest MPF with a legacy board.
Bonus Calculation Comment
I misread the logic of the bonus score calculation and regressed the behavior, until I more carefully parsed the code and realized my mistake. This PR adds a detailed comment on how that calculation works, to avoid this mishap in the future.