new parser writes datalogs

[mck1117]

#4441 let's move forward fixes #4451

[rusefillc]

should this or something be deleting legacy code already?

[mck1117]

should this or something be deleting legacy code already?

We could do that.

[rusefillc]

My focus right now is on https://github.com/rusefi/rusefi/commit/ae8eb3073a4ecf0c4f056344e10286c8e0f09c05

[mck1117]

My focus right now is on ae8eb30

Yes, that should be pretty easy shortly.

[mck1117]

I believe that this PR should be removing TsOutput

that's still in use by the normal config generation, but not by live data

[rusefillc]

I am failing to see the value of this change without TsOutput removal - as it it's introducing descepancy between two extremely similar tasks. I believe that TsOutput removal is the bare minimal of newparse if you choose to go with live data as first newparse usage.

[mck1117]

I don't understand your question. The live data tool as modified in this PR makes no call to TsOutput, but gen_config.sh does, so it isn't removed yet.

DataLogConsumer, OutputsSectionConsumer, and the constructor arguments to TsOutput are now removed since those were now dead code. There is nothing more to remove.

[rusefillc]

my understaidnig of TsOutput constructor usages in master is "OutputsSectionConsumer and TSProjectConsumer are extremely similar"

my common sense is "if we replace OutputsSectionConsumer same PR should also be replacing TSProjectConsumer "

my common sense is "if we remove OutputsSectionConsumer same PR should also be removeing TSProjectConsumer "

Q: does this PR treat OutputsSectionConsumer and TSProjectConsumer the same way by migrating those together?

[rusefillc]

do we want to change random things, or seek some stability in the world?

[rusefillc]

@mi-hol here we have a great idea which is I. The works for a couple of years and in my opinion the transition period of extra effort to maintain old and new is not justified

@mck1117 I still believe that we should either completely migrate to newparse or officially give up. What do you think @mck1117?

[mi-hol]

@mi-hol here we have a great idea which is I. The works for a couple of years and in my opinion the transition period of extra effort to maintain old and new is not justified

@rusefillc apologize but I fail to understand what you try to tell me. What I see is a harsh comment discouraging further progress on this matter. It's your choice how this will end up. From my view a balance between requirements of developer and owner are required to progress as a team.

[rusefillc]

Abandoned