Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Bizhawk Bug Filers need approved set of "Upstream" emulators #3879

Open
Meerkov opened this issue Mar 25, 2024 · 6 comments
Open

Bizhawk Bug Filers need approved set of "Upstream" emulators #3879

Meerkov opened this issue Mar 25, 2024 · 6 comments
Labels
Enhancement For feature requests or possible improvements Meta Relating to code organisation or to things that aren't code Waiting on dev consensus

Comments

@Meerkov
Copy link
Contributor

Meerkov commented Mar 25, 2024

When filing bugs in games, the first reply is inevitably "did you test in upstream". However people filing bugs that use BizHawk may have no idea what this means. Therefore, an approved set of links to upstream emulators are necessary to expedite the reproduction process.

@YoshiRulz YoshiRulz added Enhancement For feature requests or possible improvements Meta Relating to code organisation or to things that aren't code labels Mar 25, 2024
@YoshiRulz
Copy link
Member

YoshiRulz commented Mar 25, 2024

As you were told on Discord, ported cores have their name shown in the status bar, and should have a hyperlink in Help > About.... GPGX is unique in that there is no standalone desktop app to compare to.

Links could be added to this table in the readme (edit: as below), but I fear that would make it too information-dense. I think writing a guide specifically for reporting bugs in games would be better in the long-term; a good chunk of our bugs are that kind, but we have about 2 lines total of documentation for it at the moment.

System Core(s)
Game Boy / Color Gambatte, GBHawk, SameBoy
Game Boy Advance mGBA
Intellivision IntelliHawk
MSX MSXHawk
N64 Ares64, Mupen64Plus
NDS melonDS
Neo Geo Pocket NeoPop

@vadosnaprimer
Copy link
Contributor

vadosnaprimer commented Mar 25, 2024

Upstream column in that table would be exactly for telling people what to test on, so I don't see a problem in one more column.

@YoshiRulz
Copy link
Member

YoshiRulz commented Mar 25, 2024

(Edited my previous comment to show a sample table.)

Pointing to "the upstream" for each core is complicated by the fact that we generally aren't keeping up with updates for them; we should really be pointing testers at the standalone version matching the one we include, and not just the latest or the project's homepage. Hence I think expanding the table in the readme won't be sufficient.

@vadosnaprimer
Copy link
Contributor

Like in the GPGX's case, we can backport individual fixes if we can't afford updating the whole thing. And people telling us how everything works upstream is all the more nag to pull from it properly (which is why newly ported cores are organized to make it as easy as possible).

@nattthebear
Copy link
Contributor

Ported cores have their name shown in the status bar, and should have a hyperlink in Help > About....

Given that this is the case, I don't feel we need to do anything else. Is this ticket about frustration finding upstreams in general, or just GPGX-specific?

@Meerkov
Copy link
Contributor Author

Meerkov commented Apr 7, 2024

This ticket is about all cores, not gpgx specific. GPGX does not appear in the bug title or description.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
Enhancement For feature requests or possible improvements Meta Relating to code organisation or to things that aren't code Waiting on dev consensus
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

4 participants