feat: add Stackbit 1248 vertical layout for backup display by bitcoisas · Pull Request #847 · selfcustody/krux

bitcoisas · 2026-03-31T02:03:14Z

What is this PR for?

This PR adds vertical layout support for Stackbit 1248 backup display.

Currently, the Stackbit 1248 grid only supports the horizontal layout (rows = digits, columns = weights 1/2/4/8). This adds a menu to choose between "Standard" (horizontal) and "Vertical" (rows = weights, columns = digits), which is essentially the transposition of the grid.

This PR covers the backup/display side only. The input/loading side will be addressed in a separate PR as discussed with maintainers.

Close backup part of #834

Changes made to:

Did you build the code and tested on device?

Tested on simulator, not yet on device. Looking for feedback on the approach first.

What is the purpose of this pull request?

Bug fix
New feature
Docs update
Other

Screenshots (not the same words on the devices):

After selecting Stackbit 1248 on menu:

Choosing Standard:

Choosing Vertical:

codecov · 2026-03-31T02:08:47Z

Codecov Report

❌ Patch coverage is 98.19277% with 3 lines in your changes missing coverage. Please review.
✅ Project coverage is 97.32%. Comparing base (8c6579a) to head (22b4cb3).

Files with missing lines	Patch %	Lines
src/krux/pages/home_pages/mnemonic_backup.py	96.22%	2 Missing ⚠️
src/krux/pages/stack_1248.py	99.11%	1 Missing ⚠️

Additional details and impacted files

@@             Coverage Diff             @@
##           develop     #847      +/-   ##
===========================================
+ Coverage    97.31%   97.32%   +0.01%     
===========================================
  Files           83       83              
  Lines        10632    10798     +166     
===========================================
+ Hits         10346    10509     +163     
- Misses         286      289       +3

☔ View full report in Codecov by Sentry.
📢 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.

joaozinhom · 2026-03-31T19:03:55Z

IMO this is ready to review

jaonoctus

utACK

qlrd

cACK

IMO you can make 1 square per page. While in Amigo you have a big screen, users will already flip the metal backup. It's good for user review to confirm the dots. Also maybe its too smal for m5 to use more than 1 per page (in this geometry).

I think will be good refactor some lines so we can reuse them in both this and #839

qlrd · 2026-03-31T21:00:22Z

+        n_word_cols = 2
+        n_cols_per_word = 4
+        word_col_gap = 4
+        row_gap = 3
+        header_h = FONT_HEIGHT
+
+        label_w = FONT_WIDTH
+        x_start = MINIMAL_PADDING
+        right_pad = MINIMAL_PADDING
+
+        available_w = (
+            self.ctx.display.width() - x_start - label_w - word_col_gap - right_pad
+        )
+        cell_w = available_w // (n_word_cols * n_cols_per_word)
+
+        n_rows = (len(words_list) + n_word_cols - 1) // n_word_cols
+        available_h = self.ctx.display.height() - y_start
+        cell_h = (available_h - n_rows * header_h - (n_rows - 1) * row_gap) // (
+            n_rows * 4
+        )
+        cell_h = min(cell_h, FONT_HEIGHT)
+
+        grid_w = n_cols_per_word * cell_w
+        row_total_h = header_h + 4 * cell_h
+
+        dot_size = max(min(cell_w, cell_h) - 6, 1)
+        radius = dot_size // 2
+
+        x_label = x_start
+        x_grid_left = x_label + label_w
+        x_grid_right = x_grid_left + grid_w + word_col_gap


All those variables are necessary? IMO this could be simplified with constants.

These variables are used for layout calculation on different screen sizes! Happy to simplify if you have specific suggestions :)

My suggestion requires adding some constants at the beginning (untested):

N_WORD_COLS = 2 WORD_COL_GAP = 4 # also matches `n_cols_per_word` in your commit ROW_GAP = 3

Suggested change

n_word_cols = 2

n_cols_per_word = 4

word_col_gap = 4

row_gap = 3

header_h = FONT_HEIGHT

label_w = FONT_WIDTH

x_start = MINIMAL_PADDING

right_pad = MINIMAL_PADDING

available_w = (

self.ctx.display.width() - x_start - label_w - word_col_gap - right_pad

)

cell_w = available_w // (n_word_cols * n_cols_per_word)

n_rows = (len(words_list) + n_word_cols - 1) // n_word_cols

available_h = self.ctx.display.height() - y_start

cell_h = (available_h - n_rows * header_h - (n_rows - 1) * row_gap) // (

n_rows * 4

)

cell_h = min(cell_h, FONT_HEIGHT)

grid_w = n_cols_per_word * cell_w

row_total_h = header_h + 4 * cell_h

dot_size = max(min(cell_w, cell_h) - 6, 1)

radius = dot_size // 2

x_label = x_start

x_grid_left = x_label + label_w

x_grid_right = x_grid_left + grid_w + word_col_gap

available_w = (

self.ctx.display.width() - (MINIMAL_PADDING * 2) - FONT_WIDTH - WORD_COL_GAP

)

cell_w = available_w // (N_WORD_COLS * WORD_COL_GAP)

n_rows = (len(words_list) + N_WORD_COLS - 1) // N_WORD_COLS

available_h = self.ctx.display.height() - y_start

cell_h = (available_h - n_rows * FONT_HEIGHT - (n_rows - 1) * ROW_GAP) // (

n_rows * 4

)

cell_h = min(cell_h, FONT_HEIGHT)

grid_w = WORD_COL_GAP * cell_w

row_total_h = FONT_HEIGHT + 4 * cell_h

dot_size = max(min(cell_w, cell_h) - 6, 1)

radius = dot_size // 2

x_label = MINIMAL_PADDING

x_grid_left = x_label + FONT_WIDTH

x_grid_right = x_grid_left + grid_w + WORD_COL_GAP

Or something like that, is a suggestion, try yourself :)

qlrd · 2026-04-01T13:41:42Z

Also, you could do a more cleaner history:

pick 2b7e8df9
fixup e521f8d3 # or maybe squash, if you wanna

qlrd

nits:

joaozinhom

ACK ba4c588

@jaonoctus

This commit add a feature commented by @jaonoctus on a [\selfcustody#847 comment](https://github.com/selfcustody/krux/pull/847/changes#r3029819808), where an unecessary review about multiple lines could be avoided automatically if we apply the `mccabe` plugin to `pylint`. Tested with some weird complex code and catch nice.

@jaonoctus

This commit add a feature commented by @jaonoctus on a [\selfcustody#847 comment](https://github.com/selfcustody/krux/pull/847/changes#r3029819808), where an review about multiple lines review could be avoided automatically if we apply the `mccabe` plugin to `pylint`. E.g, visually complexity could lead humans to interpret some lines as complex given a experience of how code should be or not to be; some standars could say that 25 lines could be the limit of a readability. But a cyclomatic complexity on a function could be used as a "how real complex is the function" and "it should be really refactored?". Tested with `max-complexity=13` and `max-complexity=20` in tags `v26.03.0`, branches `main`, `develop` and `feat/stackbit-1248-vertical`. For more details about values a wikipedia short ref: * 1–10: Simple procedure: `little risk`; * 11–20: More complex: `moderate risk`; * 21–50: Complex: `high risk`. * > 50: Untestable code: `very high risk`;

@jaonoctus

This commit add a feature commented by @jaonoctus on a [\selfcustody#847 comment](https://github.com/selfcustody/krux/pull/847/changes#r3029819808), where an review about multiple lines review could be avoided automatically if we apply the `mccabe` plugin to `pylint`. E.g, visually complexity could lead humans to interpret some lines as complex given a experience of how code should be or not to be; some standars could say that 25 lines could be the limit of a readability. But a cyclomatic complexity on a function could be used as a "how real complex is the function" and "it should be really refactored?". Tested with `max-complexity=13` and `max-complexity=20` in tags `v26.03.0`, branches `main`, `develop` and `feat/stackbit-1248-vertical`. For more details about values a wikipedia short ref: * 1–10: Simple procedure: `little risk`; * 11–20: More complex: `moderate risk`; * 21–50: Complex: `high risk`. * > 50: Untestable code: `very high risk`;

@jaonoctus

This commit add a feature commented by @jaonoctus on a [\selfcustody#847 comment](https://github.com/selfcustody/krux/pull/847/changes#r3029819808), where an review about multiple lines review could be avoided automatically if we apply the `mccabe` plugin to `pylint`. E.g, visually complexity could lead humans to interpret some lines as complex given a experience of how code should be or not to be; some standars could say that 25 lines could be the limit of a readability. But a cyclomatic complexity on a function could be used as a "how real complex is the function" and "it should be really refactored?". Tested with `max-complexity=13` and `max-complexity=20` in tags `v26.03.0`, branches `main`, `develop` and `feat/stackbit-1248-vertical`. For more details about values a wikipedia short ref: * 1–10: Simple procedure: `little risk`; * 11–20: More complex: `moderate risk`; * 21–50: Complex: `high risk`. * > 50: Untestable code: `very high risk`;

@jaonoctus

This commit add a feature commented by @jaonoctus on a [\selfcustody#847 comment](https://github.com/selfcustody/krux/pull/847/changes#r3029819808), where an review about multiple lines review could be avoided automatically if we apply the `mccabe` plugin to `pylint`. E.g, visually complexity could lead humans to interpret some lines as complex given a experience of how code should be or not to be; some standars could say that 25 lines could be the limit of a readability. But a cyclomatic complexity on a function could be used as a "how real complex is the function" and "it should be really refactored?". Tested with `max-complexity=13` and `max-complexity=20` in tags `v26.03.0`, branches `main`, `develop` and `feat/stackbit-1248-vertical`. For more details about values a wikipedia short ref: * 1–10: Simple procedure: `little risk`; * 11–20: More complex: `moderate risk`; * 21–50: Complex: `high risk`. * > 50: Untestable code: `very high risk`; For now, this commit found 7 `too-complex` functions on source code base.

@jaonoctus

This commit add a feature commented by @jaonoctus on a [\selfcustody#847 comment](https://github.com/selfcustody/krux/pull/847/changes#r3029819808), where an review about multiple lines review could be avoided automatically if we apply the `mccabe` plugin to `pylint`. E.g, visually complexity could lead humans to interpret some lines as complex given a experience of how code should be or not to be; some standars could say that 25 lines could be the limit of a readability. But a cyclomatic complexity on a function could be used as a "how real complex is the function" and "it should be really refactored?". Tested with `max-complexity=13` and `max-complexity=20` in tags `v26.03.0`, branches `main`, `develop` and `feat/stackbit-1248-vertical`. For more details about values a wikipedia short ref: * 1–10: Simple procedure: `little risk`; * 11–20: More complex: `moderate risk`; * 21–50: Complex: `high risk`. * > 50: Untestable code: `very high risk`; For now, this commit found 7 `too-complex` functions on source code base.

qlrd

LGTM. Just need a rebase

bitcoisas · 2026-04-16T03:56:13Z

LGTM. Just need a rebase

Did the rebase, but idk why the ci is blocking my commit name on "i18n"... Tried to tie everything here

qlrd · 2026-04-16T12:20:32Z

LGTM. Just need a rebase

Did the rebase, but idk why the ci is blocking my commit name on "i18n"... Tried to tie everything here

you found a bug on wagoid/action-conventional-commit. I will try to fix this step.

While, you can reword c09ce04 to feat(i18n): ..., i believe.

bitcoisas · 2026-04-16T15:26:04Z

LGTM. Just need a rebase

Did the rebase, but idk why the ci is blocking my commit name on "i18n"... Tried to tie everything here

you found a bug on wagoid/action-conventional-commit. I will try to fix this step.

While, you can reword c09ce04 to feat(i18n): ..., i believe.

We did it!!! Thanks! Everything check passed!

odudex

ACK
@jdlcdl what's your take regarding this feature inclusion?

bitcoisas · 2026-05-05T19:44:46Z

@odudex happy to share the video of this PR running on my yahboom :)

thx @joaozinhom for your help!

WhatsApp.Video.2026-05-05.at.16.42.38.mp4

qlrd

ACK 8a3cc69

odudex · 2026-05-11T17:32:47Z

Ok, before merging, can you add a CHANGELOG entry and documentation with a screenshot of the vertical option (generated through simulator/sequences script update)?

bitcoisas · 2026-05-12T07:16:51Z

@odudex Done! Added CHANGELOG entry, documentation with screenshots of Vertical layouts, also a tiny description, and updated the simulator sequences script to generate the new screenshots.

Add grouped and compact export methods.

Test grouped/compact layouts + 24-word pagination.

jdlcdl · 2026-06-09T14:05:54Z

ACK @jdlcdl what's your take regarding this feature inclusion?

a month late, I like this feature (while I don't know where to buy these plates). Currently looking into the follow-up pr 862.

bitcoisas changed the title ~~Feat/stackbit 1248 vertical~~ feat: add Stackbit 1248 vertical layout for backup display Mar 31, 2026

bitcoisas marked this pull request as ready for review March 31, 2026 19:04

jaonoctus approved these changes Mar 31, 2026

View reviewed changes

qlrd suggested changes Apr 1, 2026

View reviewed changes

Comment thread src/krux/pages/home_pages/mnemonic_backup.py

Comment thread src/krux/pages/home_pages/mnemonic_backup.py

qlrd suggested changes Apr 1, 2026

View reviewed changes

Comment thread tests/pages/test_stackbit.py Outdated

Comment thread tests/pages/test_stackbit.py Outdated

Comment thread tests/pages/test_stackbit.py Outdated

Comment thread tests/pages/test_stackbit.py

Comment thread tests/pages/test_stackbit.py Outdated

qlrd mentioned this pull request Apr 1, 2026

feat: Stackbit 1248 camera scanner #839

Draft

4 tasks

joaozinhom approved these changes Apr 1, 2026

View reviewed changes

bitcoisas force-pushed the feat/stackbit-1248-vertical branch 2 times, most recently from 0d0e0ee to bd31de8 Compare April 3, 2026 22:09

qlrd suggested changes Apr 15, 2026

View reviewed changes

bitcoisas force-pushed the feat/stackbit-1248-vertical branch 7 times, most recently from dd5174d to c09ce04 Compare April 16, 2026 03:53

bitcoisas force-pushed the feat/stackbit-1248-vertical branch from c09ce04 to 8a3cc69 Compare April 16, 2026 15:25

jaonoctus approved these changes Apr 17, 2026

View reviewed changes

joaozinhom approved these changes Apr 30, 2026

View reviewed changes

odudex approved these changes Apr 30, 2026

View reviewed changes

bitcoisas force-pushed the feat/stackbit-1248-vertical branch from 3d3a27e to 8a3cc69 Compare May 5, 2026 04:44

bitcoisas mentioned this pull request May 5, 2026

feat: add Stackbit 1248 vertical input #858

Closed

8 tasks

bitcoisas mentioned this pull request May 5, 2026

[Enhancement] 1248 - vertical backup option #834

Open

qlrd approved these changes May 11, 2026

View reviewed changes

bitcoisas added 3 commits May 12, 2026 04:18

feat: add vertical export methods to Stackbit 1248

ead9119

Add grouped and compact export methods.

test: add tests for Stackbit 1248 vertical layout

0e9a517

Test grouped/compact layouts + 24-word pagination.

feat(i18n): add Standard and Vertical strings for stackbit menu

2181957

bitcoisas force-pushed the feat/stackbit-1248-vertical branch from bccdab0 to 8b2881d Compare May 12, 2026 07:18

bitcoisas added 2 commits May 12, 2026 04:21

docs: add Stackbit 1248 vertical layout to CHANGELOG

e811085

docs: add Stackbit 1248 vertical layout screenshots and documentation

22b4cb3

bitcoisas force-pushed the feat/stackbit-1248-vertical branch from 8b2881d to 22b4cb3 Compare May 12, 2026 07:22

odudex merged commit a7fcea8 into selfcustody:develop May 14, 2026
8 checks passed

bitcoisas deleted the feat/stackbit-1248-vertical branch May 18, 2026 23:09

bitcoisas mentioned this pull request May 18, 2026

feat: add vertical input for Stackbit 1248 #862

Open

8 tasks

Uh oh!

Conversation

bitcoisas commented Mar 31, 2026 • edited Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Uh oh!

What is this PR for?

Changes made to:

Did you build the code and tested on device?

What is the purpose of this pull request?

Screenshots (not the same words on the devices):

Uh oh!

codecov Bot commented Mar 31, 2026 • edited Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Uh oh!

Codecov Report

Uh oh!

joaozinhom commented Mar 31, 2026

Uh oh!

jaonoctus left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

qlrd left a comment • edited Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

qlrd Mar 31, 2026

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

bitcoisas Apr 3, 2026

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

qlrd Apr 4, 2026 • edited Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

qlrd commented Apr 1, 2026

Uh oh!

qlrd left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

joaozinhom left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

qlrd left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

bitcoisas commented Apr 16, 2026

Uh oh!

qlrd commented Apr 16, 2026

Uh oh!

bitcoisas commented Apr 16, 2026

Uh oh!

odudex left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

bitcoisas commented May 5, 2026 • edited Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

qlrd left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

odudex commented May 11, 2026

Uh oh!

bitcoisas commented May 12, 2026

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

jdlcdl commented Jun 9, 2026

Uh oh!

Reviewers

Assignees

Labels

bitcoisas commented Mar 31, 2026 •

edited

Loading

codecov Bot commented Mar 31, 2026 •

edited

Loading

qlrd left a comment •

edited

Loading

qlrd Apr 4, 2026 •

edited

Loading

bitcoisas commented May 5, 2026 •

edited

Loading