feat: add vertical input for Stackbit 1248

[bitcoisas]

What is this PR for?

This PR adds vertical layout support for Stackbit 1248 seed input, covering the input/loading side of #834.

A "Vertical" option is added to the "Load from 1248" submenu alongside the existing "Standard" layout. Also, this PR complement this other one: #847 (backup side).

Closes input part of #834

Changes made to:

• Code
• Tests
• Docs
• CHANGELOG

Did you build the code and tested on device?

What is the purpose of this pull request?

• Bug fix
• New feature
• Docs update
• Other

Screenshots:

[codecov]

Codecov Report

✅ All modified and coverable lines are covered by tests.
✅ Project coverage is 97.36%. Comparing base (9ef5803) to head (e9509e4).
⚠️ Report is 14 commits behind head on develop.

Additional details and impacted files

@@             Coverage Diff             @@
##           develop     #862      +/-   ##
===========================================
+ Coverage    97.30%   97.36%   +0.05%     
===========================================
  Files           83       83              
  Lines        10798    10986     +188     
===========================================
+ Hits         10507    10696     +189     
+ Misses         291      290       -1     

☔ View full report in Codecov by Harness.
📢 Have feedback on the report? Share it here.

🚀 New features to boost your workflow:

• ❄️ Test Analytics: Detect flaky tests, report on failures, and find test suite problems.

[bitcoisas]

Should these changes be added to the changelog? If so, for the May release?

[qlrd]

Should these changes be added to the changelog? If so, for the May release?

For now make it drat and make changes on CHANGELOG.md

[odudex]

As the form factor allows, try to increase grid size and better use screen surface, making it easier to type.

[qlrd]

some nits to DRY:

[bitcoisas]

@qlrd Implemented the DRY refactor suggestion and removed the layout size limiter for larger devices @odudex, now making full use of the available screen. Updated docs and screenshots accordingly.

Still need to test on device, i will update here later today! :)

[bitcoisas]

Still need to test on device, i will update here later today! :)

Done, updated the PR Device image tho!

[qlrd]

LGTM, but if possible, i would check the uncovered lines. Saw them and found weird that they aren't covered. Either untested by some case or those pieces receive more love.

[joaozinhom]

LGTM, there are some uncovered lines to review but i think its a simple mock test work, in my view the uncovered lines are in the following functions:
_toggle_bit_vertical;
_index_vertical;

[qlrd]

LGTM, there are some uncovered lines to review but i think its a simple mock test work, in my view the uncovered lines are in the following functions: _toggle_bit_vertical; _index_vertical;

One thing that i learned here is that we have potential dead codes, @bitcoisas check if they're dead codes or just need mock like @joaozinhom says

[bitcoisas]

_toggle_bit_vertical;
_index_vertical;

i will work on the coverage later today, checking if we have dead code and also writing some new unit tests too! Thanks again team learning a lot with your guidance! :)

[bitcoisas]

LGTM, there are some uncovered lines to review but i think its a simple mock test work, in my view the uncovered lines are in the following functions: _toggle_bit_vertical; _index_vertical;

One thing that i learned here is that we have potential dead codes, @bitcoisas check if they're dead codes or just need mock like @joaozinhom says

Good catch @qlrd and @joaozinhom ! The if digits[col] == 0 branch in both clamps is unreachable since those cases are already blocked by VERT_INVALID_CELLS, so I simplified both to new_val = 0.

Added unit tests for the remaining paths: early return for invalid cells and forward navigation in _index_vertical.

Now we have the 100% coverage and a cleaner code. Thank you again for the reviews.

[joaozinhom]

ACK 22e2533

[qlrd]

Two last commits could go as one

[bitcoisas]

Just a FUP, i'm working on the updates that you suggested/asked to change here @qlrd. And thank you very much to make me level up every day! :)

[bitcoisas]

hey @qlrd merged your PR, thanks for the refactor learned a lot with your test style, but i kept the guard in _toggle_bit_vertical bc its reachable via touch even tho the cells are shaded, added a test to cover it.

[joaozinhom]

ACK a68ff88

[jdlcdl]

ACK tested at a68ff88 on simulator, amigo and yahboom_devkit (also had a chance to see merged pr_834 in action).

The task of stackbit1248 data entry was easier than I imagined, and is easier than tinyseed-ish data entry, especially with fat fingers and smaller yahboom_devkit screen. Still I made errors along the way and had a chance to say No or to fix before confirmation... or to correct the word once I realized my 12 checksum word was wrong... flow felt nice the entire time.

regarding Tadeu's comment in pr 834 with the unlabeled plate... this seems like an interesting backup method if user is shooting for "I don't want anyone to know what this plate represents in the event they find it.":

It would be a very low-tech solution to:

• start with a transparent template (plastified vellum) of stackbit1248,
• cover the template with a fat strip of scotch-tape,
• mark-up the scotch-tape with permanent marker until it is a verified stackbit1248 backup,
• peel-off the scotch-tape and lay it over any piece of scrap inox/stainless,
• punch and mark corners to cut-to-shape.

...to recover, lay your stackbit1248 transparent template over your unlabeled backup plate and load into krux.

[jdlcdl]

Very neat improvements @bitcoisas, still to address: requested changes from @qlrd ?!?!

[bitcoisas]

Very neat improvements @bitcoisas, still to address: requested changes from @qlrd ?!?!

Thanks for the ACK and for testing on multiple devices, @jdlcdl. I believe I ve addressed all of @qlrd requested changes and already requested a re-review.

[qlrd]

LGTM, just som non-blocking nits and a suggestion to replace test docstrings to comments

[qlrd]

ACK e9509e4

[odudex]

One thing that we should discuss with @stackbitme is the use of "Stackbit" brand. This format was not created or used by Stackbit. AFAIK there's only one guy making it (the mead guy), maybe we could differentiate the original one as Stackbit 1248, and this new one as "Vertical 1248".
What do you think about this @stackbitme?