[chirp_devel] New mod for issue 5943

[Dan Smith]

> OK, here is the patch to allow for driver-generated comments. Mods to chirp_common and run_tests. Otherwise pretty simple. Just ignores the Comment field in compare_mem module of runt_tests.py if the feature attribute 'generated_comment' is true.
> Also note my new issue #5941 about the View > Columns discrepancy in the latest release. I poked about a bit to try to find the problem and was only able to see that the wrong memedit page is being returned in mainapp at do_columns.

@@ -371,17 +370,19 @@
     def get_prompts(cls):
         rp = chirp_common.RadioPrompts()
         rp.info = _(dedent("""
-            The FT-450 radio driver loads the 'Special Channels' tab
+            - The FT-450 radio driver loads the 'Special Channels' tab
             with the PMS scanning range memories (group 11), 60meter
             channels (group 12), the QMB (STO/RCL) memory, the HF and
             50m HOME memories and all the A and B VFO memories.
-            There are VFO memories for the last frequency dialed in
+            - There are VFO memories for the last frequency dialed in
             each band. The last mem-tune config is also stored.
-            These Special Channels allow limited field editting.
-            This driver also populates the 'Other' tab in the channel
+            - These Special Channels allow limited field editting.
+            - This driver also populates the 'Other' tab in the channel
             memory Properties window. This tab contains values for
             those channel memory settings that don't fall under the
             standard Chirp display columns.
+            - The 'Comment' column contains the memory group label,
+            if groups are enabled.
             """))

I'm not sure what happened here. Why are the dashes added to these lines?

+        rf.has_comment = True
+        rf.generated_comment = True

Shouldn't has_comment be False now since this driver doesn't actually have the comment field (as originally intended) and no longer overrides it for the generated comment?

@@ -602,7 +604,7 @@
             mx = (-self.LAST_PMS_INDEX) + mem.number
             _mem = self._memobj.pms[mx]
             mx = mx + 1
-            if MEM_GRP_LBL:
+            if _settings.mem_grp:
                 mem.comment = "M-11-%02i" % mx
             immutable = ["number", "rtone", "ctone", "extd_number",
                          "tmode", "cross_mode",
@@ -611,7 +613,7 @@
             mx = (-self.LAST_60M_INDEX) + mem.number
             _mem = self._memobj.m60[mx]
             mx = mx + 1
-            if MEM_GRP_LBL:
+            if _settings.mem_grp:
                 mem.comment = "M-12-%02i" % mx

I must be missing something. Did you intend to set mem.generated_comment? Also, why are these hard-coded to M-11 and M-12? Something related to them being special memories maybe?

             immutable = ["number", "rtone", "ctone", "extd_number",
                          "tmode", "cross_mode",
@@ -677,6 +679,7 @@
 
     def _get_normal(self, number):
         _mem = self._memobj.memory[number - 1]
+        _settings = self._memobj.settings
         used = (self._memobj.visible[(number - 1) / 8] >> (number - 1) % 8) \
                 & 0x01
         valid = (self._memobj.filled[(number - 1) / 8] >> (number - 1) % 8) \
@@ -688,9 +691,9 @@
             mem.empty = True
             if not valid or _mem.freq == 0xffffffff:
                 return mem
-        if MEM_GRP_LBL:
+        if _settings.mem_grp:
             mgrp = int((number - 1) / 50)
-            mem.comment = "M-%02i-%02i" % (mgrp + 1, number - (mgrp * 50))
+            mem.comment= "M-%02i-%02i" % (mgrp + 1, number - (mgrp * 50))

Again, generated_comment? Also, you nuked the space before the '=' sign.

Okay, I'm a bit confused. I thought you wanted this new memory field to be a comment in the UI? This patch doesn't add any new UI elements, and still sets the old field so I think I'm missing something... :)

--Dan