add documentation and versioning experimentals#7
Conversation
There was a problem hiding this comment.
💡 Codex Review
Here are some automated review suggestions for this pull request.
ℹ️ About Codex in GitHub
Your team has set up Codex to review pull requests in this repo. Reviews are triggered when you
- Open a pull request for review
- Mark a draft as ready
- Comment "@codex review".
If Codex has suggestions, it will comment; otherwise it will react with 👍.
Codex can also answer questions or update the PR. Try commenting "@codex address that feedback".
osc-devtools/README.md
Outdated
| The CLI provides various subcommands for working with OSC data: | ||
|
|
||
| ```bash | ||
| # Show help | ||
| osc-devtools --help | ||
|
|
||
| # Test roundtrip conversion between JSON and MessagePack | ||
| osc-devtools roundtrip | ||
|
|
||
| # Convert JSON to MessagePack | ||
| osc-devtools json-to-msgpack input.json output.msgpack | ||
|
|
||
| # Convert MessagePack to JSON | ||
| osc-devtools msgpack-to-json input.msgpack output.json | ||
|
|
||
| # Validate OSC IR data | ||
| osc-devtools validate data.json | ||
| ``` |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Update README to match available CLI subcommands
The README lists commands such as roundtrip, json-to-msgpack, msgpack-to-json, and validate, but the binary only defines the clap subcommands json-roundtrip, msgpack-roundtrip, and bundle-demo in main.rs. Invoking the documented command names will exit with "unrecognized subcommand" errors, so the usage section is misleading for anyone trying the tool.
Useful? React with 👍 / 👎.
osc-devtools/README.md
Outdated
| ## Library Usage | ||
|
|
||
| The crate also provides library functions for programmatic use: | ||
|
|
||
| ```rust | ||
| use osc_devtools::{create_test_bundle, roundtrip_test}; | ||
|
|
||
| // Create complex test data | ||
| let test_data = create_test_bundle(); | ||
|
|
||
| // Test roundtrip conversion | ||
| let success = roundtrip_test(&test_data); | ||
| assert!(success); | ||
| ``` |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Remove nonexistent library API from README
The README claims the crate exposes create_test_bundle and roundtrip_test for programmatic use, but the package only contains main.rs and does not export a library or those functions. Sample code use osc_devtools::{create_test_bundle, roundtrip_test}; will not compile. Either add a library module or adjust the documentation to reflect the actual binary-only crate.
Useful? React with 👍 / 👎.
|
@codex review |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
💡 Codex Review
https://github.com/Nagitch/osc-data-model/blob/e5081f94eed65ca2e0c44d26387e6666b6cf86fd/Cargo.lock#L194-L196
Refresh Cargo.lock after bumping crate versions
All member Cargo.toml files now declare version 0.1.0-alpha.1, but the workspace lock file still pins osc-ir at 0.1.0. Any cargo invocation with --locked (common in CI or for reproducible builds) will fail with error: the lock file … needs to be updated because the manifest and lock versions no longer match. Regenerate and commit Cargo.lock so the recorded versions reflect the alpha release.
ℹ️ About Codex in GitHub
Your team has set up Codex to review pull requests in this repo. Reviews are triggered when you
- Open a pull request for review
- Mark a draft as ready
- Comment "@codex review".
If Codex has suggestions, it will comment; otherwise it will react with 👍.
Codex can also answer questions or update the PR. Try commenting "@codex address that feedback".
- Remove Cargo.lock from .gitignore to track dependency versions - Include Cargo.lock in repository for reproducible builds - Fixes CI builds with --locked flag Resolves reviewer feedback about lock file version mismatch
|
@codex review |
|
Codex Review: Didn't find any major issues. Keep them coming! ℹ️ About Codex in GitHubYour team has set up Codex to review pull requests in this repo. Reviews are triggered when you
If Codex has suggestions, it will comment; otherwise it will react with 👍. Codex can also answer questions or update the PR. Try commenting "@codex address that feedback". |
No description provided.