JoergAtGithub
JoergAtGithub
Did you have a look at: https://github.com/faaxm/spix I've no experience with it, but it seems to me pretty much what is needed here.
CI is failing
There seems to be quite a lot of changes in CI setup. Would it make sense to move them in another PR?
I personaly like it. But maintaining two parallel descriptions is of course additional maintenance effort. If we find a way do generate the controls description in the manual from this...
@Serveny This PR is your first contribution to Mixxx: As a first-time contributor we need you to sign the [Mixxx Contributor Agreement](https://docs.google.com/forms/d/e/1FAIpQLScC9QG327sjLL0eWftmfGUasxFFLxg6LCXJ2xHDYRzFIRqyiw/viewform?formkey=dEpYN2NkVEFnWWQzbkFfM0ZYYUZ5X2c6MQ) and comment here when you have done so....
I noticed this case where the third argument (cthe callback) is of wrong type, and the whole function type overload seems to be no longer detected correctly:
The behaviour depends on how you concatenate strings:
This is working in most cases, but also the control name can be a concatenated string:
I think not all variants of the ControlPotMeter controls are represented: https://manual.mixxx.org/2.6/en/chapters/appendix/mixxx_controls.html#controlpotmeter-controls
What do you think about seperated type groups for writeable and readonly controls? To hide the read-only COs from setValue etc.