Open-CMSIS-Pack Technical Meeting 2021-10-05


Oct 5, 2021


Joe Alderson
Daniel Brondani
Maxime Dortel
Eric Finco
Bill Fletcher
Marc Goodner
Samuel Hultgren
Reinhard Keil
Martin Kojtal
Laurent Meunier
Charles Oliveira
Frederic Ruelle

David Jurajda

Petr Hradsky



Actions from last meeting related to evolution for configuration files:

The pdf doc is available here:

Link to the glossary:

Issues #30, #31, #32 created

Yaml & Json

RK: Need to start creating tools: in my view yaml has one feature over json - can add comments.

Discussion on way to make decisions in the group?

FR: my inputs for this YAML topic :

Here are (also) my inputs for templating engine:

LM: Could take Frederic’s benefits as pros

FR: For json can create a key with a comment.

MG: There is “json with comments” that supports //. Find that much easier to use than the key-style comment.

RK: Many tools use yaml as a configuration file format. Ultimately it’s just a vehicle to provide data to the tools.

MG: Worked on a project used yaml and found it beneficial for users to hand edit files. We are moving back to json for consistency with other tools.

RK: Does it matter?

FR: Scheme, path, library? Do we have similar things for yaml?

RK: Is a schema repository. Not sure if we already experimented with that.

JA: Haven’t yet tried it. Yaml can use the json schema store. Worth having a browse to see how the languages are used.

FR: If we use the full features of yaml are we consistent with the json schema?

RK: Don’t think we’ll use all the possible features. Just think it’s easier to edit. Test tools use python a lot. Have positive feedback from packgen tool.

DJ: Using yaml for internal description. Also using json schema for validation. Experience is positive for yaml format.

EF: VSCode is able to consume json file quite easily. Are you able to consume a yaml file when it fulfills the json schema?

MG: Usually people are using libraries. There are a number of libraries in the web stack (Javascript). We found yaml libraries for c++ but not as much as json.

DB: For VS Code, Red Hat provides yaml support. We are experimenting with using the json libraries. Seems quite straightforward if there’s a fixed schema. They are quite similar.

DJ: Yaml format supports comments but not all libraries are able to load a yaml file and dump it back whilst preserving the comments.

FR: Concerns: we select yaml just to get the comments, we end up with something difficult to maintain, even if familiar with python, not so fond of indent-based languages.

DJ: Yaml is generally acceptable for NXP

LM: Do we want to exercise a decision process?

DB: Don’t have objections to use yaml cpp library.

RK: Proposal to use yaml.

EF: ST not completely comfortable to use yaml. Can’t see the consequences for us. ST issues mentioned here

Discussed aligning checking on some kind schema.

JA: Easiest way to work with Daniel and show the schema validation work we are doing. Use Red Hat yaml support.

RK: Propose to cut short the discussion here.


RK: Know that ST has a lot of experience with Freemarker. Any reasons why Freemarker is not the right way?

MD: Quite a powerful templating language

RK: Could you take an action to show it to us.

FR: Does FTL have the same features as Handlebar?

MD: In FTL you have macros. Don’t think there’s a major difference. Freemarker is a classical way to address templates.

Potential Tool Flow - STMicroelectronics

RK: Have other people reviewed it? Should we take the action to review it again.

LM: If there are any other alternate naming then please make them known or if some concepts are missing/overkill. Want to see where we can converge.

FR: Should we use the github issue to exchange views about this document

RK: Will start a new github issue.


DB: Very basic prototype