Typo in Option Bytes in STM32CubeProgrammer IWGDSTDBY

[NSAUG.1]

Hi,

I'm using a STM32WB55REV, and there is a typo in the option byte "IWGDSTDBY" instead of "IWDGSTDBY".

STM32CubeProgrammer v2.10.0

Best regards,

Nicolas

[Sara BEN HADJ YAHYA]

Hello @NSAUG.1​ ,

Thanks for your feedback,

Issue confirmed and reported to the dev team to fix it. I will keep you posted.

Internal ticket number: 127977 (This is an internal tracking number and is not accessible or usable by customers).

If your issue is solved, please close this post by clicking the "Select as Best" button. This will help other members of the community find this response more quickly 🙂

Thanks for your contribution.

Sara.

[NSAUG.1]

By the way I'm using the STM32_Programmer_CLI too (same version) and the typo is present too, but it could have more impact as it is used a command, when changing the option bytes.

STM32_Programmer_CLI.exe -c port=SWD mode=UR -ob iwdgstdby=0  iwdgsw=1

 

Since an unknown option byte name is ignored with a warning that does not stand out compared to warnings that the OB is already set (no change to the return value of the call unfortunately), correcting that typo here could lead to user scripts silently not programming the option byte, so now I'm thinking it might not be doing people a service to fix it... :(

Best,

Nicolas

[Sara BEN HADJ YAHYA]

Hello @NSAUG.1​ ,

The issue will be fixed in the UI and in the CLI. I will let you know once the fix is done.

Sara.

[NSAUG.1]

Thank you.

As I pointed out though, this change will break silently some user scripts, so maybe please consider making it an error to pass an invalid argument to the Option Bytes command in CLI.

That would at least warn users that something is wrong instead of leaving them with MCUs that are not programmed the way they expect, just because they updated STM32CubeProgrammer.

[Sara BEN HADJ YAHYA · Accepted solution]

Hello @NSAUG.1​ ,

This issue is fixed in STM32CubeProgrammer latest release.

V2.11.0 is now available under this Link.

Thanks for your contribution.

Sara.

[NSAUG.1]

Thanks, it looks indeed better.

But I must insist once more that SILENTLY breaking user scripts is not that great.

You could make entering unknown Option Bytes an error, which it should be - there is no reason to accept garbage on the command lines by silently ignoring the bad parts...