[Request] Freeform Custom Parameters #604

New Issue

Closed

opened 2026-01-29 16:19:17 +00:00 by claunia · 2 comments

claunia commented 2026-01-29 16:19:17 +00:00

Owner

Copy Link

Originally created by @mnadareski on GitHub (Sep 4, 2023).

Originally assigned to: @mnadareski on GitHub.

Against my better judgement, allowing for a freeform field to contain default parameters for each media type may be useful.

Pros:

• Allows for more flexibility for default parameters without requiring further code updates
• Removes possibly confusing amounts of settings from the menu
• Makes explicit customization between media types easier to discover

Cons:

• Higher learning curve for new users unless a guide or something similar is added
• Invalidates nearly all existing configuration files
• Requires validation before saving as invalid params may be added

Originally created by @mnadareski on GitHub (Sep 4, 2023). Originally assigned to: @mnadareski on GitHub. Against my better judgement, allowing for a freeform field to contain default parameters for each media type may be useful. **Pros:** - Allows for more flexibility for default parameters without requiring further code updates - Removes possibly confusing amounts of settings from the menu - Makes explicit customization between media types easier to discover **Cons:** - Higher learning curve for new users unless a guide or something similar is added - Invalidates nearly all existing configuration files - Requires validation before saving as invalid params may be added

claunia added the enhancement label 2026-01-29 16:19:17 +00:00

claunia closed this issue 2026-01-29 16:19:17 +00:00

claunia commented 2026-01-29 16:19:18 +00:00

Author

Owner

Copy Link

@mnadareski commented on GitHub (Sep 4, 2023):

There is a high likelihood of requiring a lot of testing and trial and error here. I know this will open the floodgates for per drive config requests. I am still denying those. This is not a quick or trivial process.

@mnadareski commented on GitHub (Sep 4, 2023): There is a high likelihood of requiring a lot of testing and trial and error here. I know this will open the floodgates for per drive config requests. I am still denying those. This is not a quick or trivial process.

claunia commented 2026-01-29 16:19:18 +00:00

Author

Owner

Copy Link

@mnadareski commented on GitHub (Oct 11, 2023):

I'm reversing my decision to even consider this. Validation in the UI is critical for how MPF handles things.

@mnadareski commented on GitHub (Oct 11, 2023): I'm reversing my decision to even consider this. Validation in the UI is critical for how MPF handles things.

Sign in to join this conversation.

No Branch/Tag Specified

Branches Tags

master

rolling

3.6.0

3.5.0

3.4.2

3.4.1

3.4.0

3.3.3

3.3.2

3.3.1

3.3.0

3.2.4

3.2.3

3.2.2

3.2.1

3.2.0

3.1.9

3.1.8

3.1.7

3.1.6

3.1.5

3.1.4

3.1.3

3.1.2

check-rolling

ui-rolling

3.1.1

3.1.0

3.0.3

3.0.2

3.0.1

3.0.0

2.7.5

2.7.4

2.7.3

2.7.2

2.7.1

2.7.0

2.6.6

2.6.5

2.6.4

2.6.3

2.6.2

2.6.1

2.6

2.5

2.4

2.3

2.2

2.1

2.0

1.18

1.17.1

1.17

1.16.1

1.16

1.15

1.14

1.13

1.12.2

1.12.1

1.12

1.11

1.10

1.07

1.06

1.05.1

1.05

1.04b

1.04a

1.04

1.03

1.02b

1.02

1.01d

1.01c

1.01b

Labels

Clear labels

bug

duplicate

enhancement

good first issue

help wanted

invalid

pull-request

Mirrored from GitHub Pull Request

question

regression

wontfix

No Label enhancement

Milestone

No items

No Milestone

Projects

Clear projects

No project

Assignees

Clear assignees

claunia

No Assignees

1 Participants

Notifications

Subscribe

Due Date

No due date set.

Dependencies

No dependencies set.

Reference: SabreTools/MPF#604