esp32-lcd named the substrate rather than the thing, and both halves would age: the
chip is swappable and the panel technology is incidental. What the project actually is
is a Lua app platform that happens to run on a cheap touchscreen, so the name is now a
model number rather than a parts list. slate32 is also unclaimed, where slate alone
collides with several well known projects.
Board identifiers stay as they were -- the e32r40t QEMU machine, the esp32-32e build
env and the test skill name all refer to real hardware, which did not get renamed.
Both firmwares now return {state, ssid, ip, rssi} from wifi.status() and set the tick
interval through app.setTickInterval(), so the drift list is down to the filesystem
gaps and timers.
A magic global that the runtime reads once at startup could not be changed later, gave
no feedback when misspelled, and was a second spelling of a mechanism the sibling
firmware already had. app.setTickInterval(ms) clamps to 33..3600000, takes 0 to stop,
and errors when on_tick() is not defined -- by the time init() runs the chunk body has
finished, so a missing callback is a typo rather than a race.
Also drops the code comments pointing at the other repo. Where the two APIs agree or
differ belongs in docs/lua-api-parity.md; a comment beside a constant explaining that
another firmware picked the same number is noise a reader here cannot act on.
crosspoint-reader calls it init() and requires it; this called it setup() and treated
it as optional. Same concept, two spellings, so an app could not move between the two
firmwares for no reason worth defending. init() wins because it is also the stricter
contract: a misspelled entry point is now an error instead of an app that starts,
draws nothing, and explains nothing.
Requiring it exposed that error screens were unreadable. fail() painted the message
and the host relaunched the launcher over it on the very next frame, so every Lua
error was serial-only -- which would have made "Missing init()" useless to anyone
holding the device rather than a console.
The http table copies crosspoint-reader's signatures exactly -- get/head/delete/post/
patch returning (body|nil, status), download taking maxBytes/expectedSize/sha256, the
same 50000 byte body cap and the same -1 for a request that never left the device --
so a script that talks to a server runs on either firmware. docs/lua-api-parity.md
records that, and every other place the two APIs agree, differ for a reason, or differ
because nobody noticed.
Two crosspoint behaviours are deliberately not copied. It reinterprets a string in
argument 2 of a GET as a request body, which turns a mistyped headers table into a
silent protocol error. More seriously it calls setInsecure() on every request, so TLS
is encrypted but unauthenticated on the very path a firmware update would use; this
verifies against the root bundle already sitting in the framework, and the emulator
confirms expired.badssl.com is refused while a wrong sha256 deletes the file.
Downloading exposed two failures worth naming. A 2KB read buffer on the stack tripped
the loop task's canary because a TLS handshake had already spent it, and the
hand-rolled read loop spun forever on a stream that stopped producing -- HTTPClient's
own writeToStream handles both, so the loop is gone and the loop task gets 16KB.
scripts/gen_lua_stubs.py generates stubs/esp32lcd.lua in the same LuaLS format
crosspoint uses, reading annotations off the luaL_Reg tables so a module's docs sit
with its registration. make test runs --check, which crosspoint's copy never wired up.
evan