Thoughts@facchinm ?

Codecov Report

All modified and coverable lines are covered by tests ✅

Project coverage is 95.53%. Comparing base(4a02bfc) to head(6c411fe).

@@           Coverage Diff           @@##           master     #237   +/-   ##=======================================  Coverage   95.53%   95.53%           =======================================  Files          16       16             Lines        1075     1075           =======================================  Hits         1027     1027             Misses         48       48

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

Definitely agree on the concept. On the numbering, it really depends on the expected pattern to consume these values. Eg:
while (!can.write()) could mean "keep trying until the error disappears", soCAN_ERROR_GENERIC should be0 (which is also consistent with thePrint.write API (returns the number of bytes actually written, so 0 bytes in case of error).

Ciao@facchinm ☕ 👋

That's allright with me. It is a little bit at odds with thecurrent error definition but I'd say we have a chance right now to create a clean API. What do you think (concerning possible API breakage)?

What about adoptingPrint strategy and addsetWriteError/getWriteError while returning0 on failure?