Driver Validation vs Doc - Which is right?

[HomeAutomationNerd]

A quick driver, when I validate it, gives me this:

Quote

DriverValidator - FAIL:  No Proxy was found.  A Driver must contain at least one Proxy.

The Docs ("Proxies and Proxy Types" section) say this:

Quote

[...], you can create a driver without a proxy interface. If you choose to do this your driver will still work within the Control4 system but your customers’ interactions with the system will be limited to what you implement using Control4 programming through commands and events. 

Anyone know which is which? Is it "bad practice" to create a driver that has validation errors? My mindset is usually "Treat Warnings as Errors" and enforce in the CI/CD system. Here I'm not quite sure which way to go... 

[HomeAutomationNerd]

I should add, I think the answer here is to add the driver as it's own proxy. So in my case, a driver looks like this:

<proxies>
  <proxy>C4HueScenes</proxy>
</proxies>

My driver file in this case is "C4HueScenes.c4z". 

The Docs ("Single and Multi-Proxies"), in this case, remain ambiguous:

Quote

If you decide to not use an existing proxy and create one; you should specify the proxy with the same name as your .c4i filename.  Your driver will not show up for selection within Composer if your proxy name is not a valid proxy type for the Control4 system and doesn’t match your .c4i filename.

Anyway, seems like adding my driver as it's own proxy is the thing to do. Seems a bit odd, but.. DDKs are always odd. 

[RyanE]

Adding a <proxy> tag with the filename of the driver is the 'legacy' way of doing it, and should still work.

In addition, you should add a <combo>true</combo> tag to the driver, which indicates that the driver has no proxy.

RyanE