Re: debug with mcuboot
Marti Bolivar <marti@...>
On Fri, Mar 1, 2019 at 9:12 AM David Brown <david.brown@linaro.org> wrote:
I somehow have trouble believing the date stamp on the original email. Clogged internet pipes, perhaps. Multi-image build is a build system issue, not a west issue. Nordic is working on this, for reference: https://github.com/zephyrproject-rtos/zephyr/compare/master...hakonfam:mulit_image_mcuboot_support Also just FYI, west already supports building, signing, and flashing MCUboot images. For example: # Build and flash MCUboot itself for reel_board west build -b reel_board -s mcuboot/boot/zephyr/ -d build-mcuboot west flash -d build-mcuboot/ # Build and flash hello_world as an MCUboot chain-loadable image west build -b reel_board -s zephyr/samples/hello_world/ -d build-hello -- -DCONFIG_BOOTLOADER_MCUBOOT=y west sign -t imgtool -d build-hello/ -- --key mcuboot/root-rsa-2048.pem west flash --hex-file zephyr.signed.hex -d build-hello/ The above assumes your runner prefers flashing .hex files, which is true of nrfjprog and pyocd at least. You can do it with .bin files too but it's a little more annoying and I'd like to deprecate some of the command line flags. The value of "west sign -t imgtool" compared to using imgtool directly is that it pulls the values for the --align, --header-size, and --slot-size options out of the build directory by inspecting Kconfig and device tree output files. Hopefully something like the above can continue working in these contexts, suitably extended if necessary. Thanks, Marti
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Re: CMake comments to HTML? (PR #9947 CMake build architecture documentation)
Marc Herbert
There's an actual (and draft) PR now in case anyone else is interested in following this: https://github.com/zephyrproject-rtos/zephyr/pull/13805
Still just a demo.
Off the list now.
From:
<devel@...> on behalf of Marc Herbert <marc.herbert@...>
Thanks Anas!
Correct no PR yet, sorry for the confusion. This is still at the early prototype stage however there's already a demo git commit - the one that produced the screenshot - linked from https://github.com/zephyrproject-rtos/zephyr/issues/9947 and it should work "out of the box" on Linux. Ideas, suggestions and any other kind of feedback from anyone somewhat familiar with CMake or Sphinx and brave enough to review a few TODOs, FIXMEs and other question marks would be great already, thanks in advance. Github supports commenting on volatile commits for implementation details but higher level discussions are probably best "centralized" in an issue: 9947 or some (new?) other?
Cheers,
Marc
From:
"Nashif, Anas" <anas.nashif@...>
I think this looks great.
9947 is not a PR, it is an enhancement issue, got me confused for a second. So it is an open enhancement issue with not PR associated with it, if you have something , send a PR please.
Anas
From: devel@...
[mailto:devel@...] On Behalf Of Marc Herbert
Sent: Monday, February 11, 2019 7:45 PM To: devel@... Cc: Kinder, David B <david.b.kinder@...> Subject: [Zephyr-devel] CMake comments to HTML? (PR #9947 CMake build architecture documentation)
I tried the “moderncmakedomain” sphinx extension to prototype extracting CMake comments into html and it seems to work, see screenshot and PR below.
Dave (cc:) seems to like it.
Just a quick hack for now, Linux only. Two questions: - Is the approach generally acceptable? Notably: is sphinx-moderncmakedomain acceptable as an additional pip3 requirement? - If yes then is Sebastian's PR #9947 the correct place for this? I asked him privately but he’s either off or busy. If yes then let’s discuss there and not on the mailing-list.
Cheers,
Marc
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Re: Seeing and running what CI does (was: CODEOWNERS check in CI)
Marc Herbert
Quick update.
1. [*] "yay!"... except it's not clear why tests run by Shippable are not deterministic: https://github.com/zephyrproject-rtos/zephyr/pull/13803 randconfig maybe? I digress.Non-determinism found and explained: https://github.com/zephyrproject-rtos/zephyr/pull/13973 Thanks to the reviewers for the very quick reviews. 2. As the opposite experience, I also got for another work in progress / hack / draft PR:Still unclear. 3. In the same draft PR as 2. I "forgot" a license header in a temporary file. While it does not provide the command and log, the zephyrbot told me in very nice terms what was wrong. What's still confusing however is why the zephyr-ci-tools/scripts/check_compliance.py [-m Licence] script which I did run before pushing keeps telling me everything is fine and didn't save me the round trip time (and embarrassment). A typo would also cost (another) round-trip. This script really looks like the check zephyrbot runs but... it's apparently not or not quite?Mystery solved: https://github.com/zephyrproject-rtos/ci-tools/pull/25 Another mystery being fixed by Ulf: CODEOWNERS failing locally but not in CI https://github.com/zephyrproject-rtos/ci-tools/pull/23 https://github.com/zephyrproject-rtos/zephyr/pull/13978
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Re: debug with mcuboot
On Wed, Aug 22, 2018 at 01:46:18AM -0700, robert.konc@controlmatik.eu wrote:
How could I create image that will be signed that mcuboot will recognise it asThis seems to have gone unanswered. For my use, I've always had an "outer" makefile that invokved the cmake and ninja build on the Zephyr target (as well as mcuboot), and then used imgtool.py and possibly assemble.py to make my resulting image. This probably could be added to the Zephyr build, at least the signing part, but solving the multi-image build is possibly more an area for something like West to solve. This will become even more of an issue with multiple images beyond just the bootloader, such as multiple CPUs or a trusted execution environment (TF-M style). David
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Re: k_poll_signal_raise linker error
Ramakrishna Pallala <ramakrishna.pallala@...>
Issue resolved.
From: devel@... [mailto:devel@...]
On Behalf Of Ramakrishna Pallala
Sent: Thursday, February 28, 2019 2:11 PM To: devel@... Subject: [Zephyr-devel] k_poll_signal_raise linker error
Hi, is anyone facing following linking error:
In function `k_poll_signal_raise': /home/rpallala/ssg-otc/Zephyr/zephyr-pm/test/zephyr/samples/hello_world/build/zephyr/include/generated/syscalls/kernel.h:141: undefined reference to `_impl_k_poll_signal_raise' collect2: error: ld returned 1 exit status zephyr/CMakeFiles/zephyr_prebuilt.dir/build.make:94: recipe for target 'zephyr/zephyr_prebuilt.elf' failed make[2]: *** [zephyr/zephyr_prebuilt.elf] Error 1 CMakeFiles/Makefile2:452: recipe for target 'zephyr/CMakeFiles/zephyr_prebuilt.dir/all' failed make[1]: *** [zephyr/CMakeFiles/zephyr_prebuilt.dir/all] Error 2 Makefile:83: recipe for target 'all' failed
Thanks, Ram
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
k_poll_signal_raise linker error
Ramakrishna Pallala <ramakrishna.pallala@...>
Hi, is anyone facing following linking error:
In function `k_poll_signal_raise': /home/rpallala/ssg-otc/Zephyr/zephyr-pm/test/zephyr/samples/hello_world/build/zephyr/include/generated/syscalls/kernel.h:141: undefined reference to `_impl_k_poll_signal_raise' collect2: error: ld returned 1 exit status zephyr/CMakeFiles/zephyr_prebuilt.dir/build.make:94: recipe for target 'zephyr/zephyr_prebuilt.elf' failed make[2]: *** [zephyr/zephyr_prebuilt.elf] Error 1 CMakeFiles/Makefile2:452: recipe for target 'zephyr/CMakeFiles/zephyr_prebuilt.dir/all' failed make[1]: *** [zephyr/CMakeFiles/zephyr_prebuilt.dir/all] Error 2 Makefile:83: recipe for target 'all' failed
Thanks, Ram
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Zephyr Project Newsletter Q1 2019
Zephyr Project
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
LE pair disconnected
Tommy Lin (林志聰) <Tommy.Lin@...>
Hi Ryan Erickson, We use zephyr source code(samples/bluetooth/hci_uart) , and type following commands: After then , we can find out device(named “2019bt”) in our phone , and we can pair it. But “2019bt” will be disconnected after about two second at connected. Could you give us some suggestions Thank You.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Re: Mesh Provisioning Publisher - Setting & Binding in application
#bluetoothmesh
#zephyrbluetoothmesh
Hi Billy,
On 26 Feb 2019, at 9.47, William Fish <William.fish@manulytica.com> wrote: I'm new to this and struggling with BLE Mesh provisioning and need help, I am using Micro-bit (nrf51) which struggle to provision via BlueZ meshctl as they have such little memory hence i am attempting to configure the mesh within the application.If I were to guess, you’re calling the configuration client APIs without waiting for the responses (passing NULL for the response parameters, like the status) and some previous call has consumed all segmented message sending contexts (CONFIG_BT_MESH_TX_SEG_MSG_COUNT). If that’s the case you’ll either need to wait for the previous operation to complete, or increase these contexts. If you enabled logging (CONFIG_BT_DEBUG_LOG=y) you should also see an error message related to the reason why EBUSY is returned. I realise this may not be feasible however, due to the limited amount of memory on the micro:bit. Johan
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Re: Seeing and running what CI does (was: CODEOWNERS check in CI)
Marc Herbert
Hi,
As a funny coincidence I experienced three (!) CI issues relevant to this discussion today:
1. Some one-line "typo" fix failed to link some C code for a totally unrelated reason. Shippable seems to be the only CI element that provides complete logs. So I could instantly find the error in the logs and the next second someone on Slack pointed me at the candidate (and unrelated) fix. Searching github issues for "zephyr_write" also finds the candidate fix instantly, yay! [*]
2. As the opposite experience, I also got for another work in progress / hack / draft PR: Documentation build with 'make htmldocs' failed. ... and that's it; no logs or error message whatsoever, just this line. I have some guesses of what fails in CI while everything works for me (it is a documentation _hack_) but zero information on what exactly or how.
3. In the same draft PR as 2. I "forgot" a license header in a temporary file. While it does not provide the command and log, the zephyrbot told me in very nice terms what was wrong. What's still confusing however is why the zephyr-ci-tools/scripts/check_compliance.py [-m Licence] script which I did run before pushing keeps telling me everything is fine and didn't save me the round trip time (and embarrassment). A typo would also cost (another) round-trip. This script really looks like the check zephyrbot runs but... it's apparently not or not quite?
Any layer of indirection in CI creates distance between developers and CI and makes developers care less about failures that don't affect them directly. Developers are not "consumers" and the vast majority seems to prefer having too much information than too little and solve problems by themselves but if the only option they have is not to care about some failures then they don't.
There may be reasons for not all CI details to be available and/or easy to reproduce but they don't apply to stuff like building docs or license checks or other simple sanitycheck.
1. https://app.shippable.com/github/zephyrproject-rtos/zephyr/runs/35577 2. & 3. https://github.com/zephyrproject-rtos/zephyr/pull/13805
[*] "yay!"... except it's not clear why tests run by Shippable are not deterministic: https://github.com/zephyrproject-rtos/zephyr/pull/13803 randconfig maybe? I digress.
Marc
From:
Marc Herbert <marc.herbert@...>
Hi,
A couple things I find confusing: - There's only the ("beautified") output but not the commands that produced them as is typical in CI, so no obvious indication of what to do to test the next git push and make sure it will actually fix the issues before pushing again. - The comments with the output are typically some distance away from the red/green "traffic lights" with unrelated stuff in between - The "Details" buttons on the other hand *are* in the traffic lights and seem really designed to point at the output, I think most people expect them to but they point at the documentation instead.
> you do not have to look at the actual CI log which might be verbose and misleading
Well (most of) the actual CI log is or should be what one gets anyway when running the sanitycheck / compliance.py / etc. scripts locally so if that output is confusing then users will just submit patches to make it better (as I just did) and keep everything consistent.
The less difference and distance between users and CI, the better.
> The actual output is always available in a comment posted by zephyrbot in the same PR. The comment is updated for every run
It's interesting that this comment preserves some review history unlike the aggressive way the "traffic lights" in particular and github in general rewrite and bury review history. So this is Good but unfortunately inconsistent with (Bad) github so a bit confusing again. For instance it's difficult to relate the history of this comment to the corresponding git pushes and commits.
> We are planning at some point to use the Checks API from GH which would make things more clear.
Do you know some other (unrelated) project(s) to look at that already use this API?
Marc
From:
"Nashif, Anas" <anas.nashif@...>
Status is actually available as a comment in the PR. We are planning at some point to use the Checks API from GH which would make things more clear. The scripts now provide the output so you do not have to look at the actual CI log which might be verbose and misleading. If any information is missing in the comments posted by CI, please let us know.
Anas
From:
<devel@...> on behalf of Marc Herbert <marc.herbert@...>
Hi Björn,
I asked this question on Slack some time back and Anas answered it's not possible (yet?) for various reasons, one of them related to github accounts and security.
Fortunately something even more useful is already possible: running the checks yourself. Just run this compliance_script.py script: https://github.com/zephyrproject-rtos/ci-tools/tree/master/scripts https://github.com/zephyrproject-rtos/ci-tools/pulls
I know run this script *before* uploading anything to github as it obviously saves round trips and time. You also need the "sanitycheck" script in the other, main repo. I think sanitycheck is mentioned in the online documentation and the check_compliance about to be.
On a related CI topic, here's why the code coverage report is very often bogus: https://github.com/codecov/codecov-bash/issues/83 thumbs up to "vote" for it
Cheers,
Marc
From:
<devel@...> on behalf of Stenberg <bjorn@...>
Can we please make the "Details" links for these checks show the actual output of the check command, rather than the current generic information about why the check exists?
--
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
BUGS (Zephyr v1.14.0-rc1) Feb 26 2019
Kumar Gala
256:bug
121:priority: medium 103:priority: low 8:priority: high 22:Coverity 21:platform: NXP 18:area: Networking 17:area: Bluetooth 14:platform: nRF 14:area: Logging 13:area: MISRA-C 12:area: Drivers 11:area: Tests 11:area: Kernel 10:area: ARM 8:platform: ESP32 8:area: Xtensa 8:area: Memory Protection 7:area: Watchdog 7:area: Documentation 6:area: Shell 6:area: Samples 6:area: ARC 5:area: USB 5:area: Sockets 5:area: I2C 4:area: Toolchains 4:area: Testing 4:area: Power Management 4:area: File System 3:area: west 3:area: UART 3:area: Timer 3:area: PWM 3:area: POSIX 3:area: NIOS2 3:area: Device Tree 3:area: Counter 3:API 2:platform: STM32 2:good first issue 2:area: Security 2:area: Sanitycheck 2:area: SPI 2:area: Portability 2:area: Other 2:area: GPIO 2:area: Display 2:area: Conformance 2:area: Boards 1:to do 1:platform: ATMEL 1:area: mcumgr 1:area: Testing Suite 1:area: PCI 1:area: OpenThread 1:area: OTA 1:area: Memory Management 1:area: LWM2M 1:area: Kconfig 1:area: IPC 1:area: Flash 1:area: Ethernet 1:area: Debugging 1:area: Crypto / RNG 1:area: Console 1:area: Configuration System 1:area: C Library 1:area: Build System 1:LTS 1:EXT
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Mesh Provisioning Publisher - Setting & Binding in application
#bluetoothmesh
#zephyrbluetoothmesh
Hi,
I'm new to this and struggling with BLE Mesh provisioning and need help, I am using Micro-bit (nrf51) which struggle to provision via BlueZ meshctl as they have such little memory hence i am attempting to configure the mesh within the application. All appears okay with subscriptions and I can send unsolicited massages () but i haven't managed to configure a model to publish. When i run the following I get a -16 error (EBUSY 16 /* Mount device busy */) Any help appreciated. Billy.. /* Add Sensor Server model Publisher */
err = bt_mesh_cfg_mod_pub_set(net_idx, addr, addr,
BT_MESH_MODEL_ID_SENSOR_CLI, &pub, NULL);
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Re: CODEOWNERS check in CI
Björn Stenberg
Oh! I somehow missed that. Thanks, that's good enough for me. -- Björn
On Tue, Feb 26, 2019 at 2:16 AM Nashif, Anas <anas.nashif@...> wrote:
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Re: Seeing and running what CI does (was: CODEOWNERS check in CI)
Marc Herbert
Hi,
A couple things I find confusing: - There's only the ("beautified") output but not the commands that produced them as is typical in CI, so no obvious indication of what to do to test the next git push and make sure it will actually fix the issues before pushing again. - The comments with the output are typically some distance away from the red/green "traffic lights" with unrelated stuff in between - The "Details" buttons on the other hand *are* in the traffic lights and seem really designed to point at the output, I think most people expect them to but they point at the documentation instead.
> you do not have to look at the actual CI log which might be verbose and misleading
Well (most of) the actual CI log is or should be what one gets anyway when running the sanitycheck / compliance.py / etc. scripts locally so if that output is confusing then users will just submit patches to make it better (as I just did) and keep everything consistent.
The less difference and distance between users and CI, the better.
> The actual output is always available in a comment posted by zephyrbot in the same PR. The comment is updated for every run
It's interesting that this comment preserves some review history unlike the aggressive way the "traffic lights" in particular and github in general rewrite and bury review history. So this is Good but unfortunately inconsistent with (Bad) github so a bit confusing again. For instance it's difficult to relate the history of this comment to the corresponding git pushes and commits.
> We are planning at some point to use the Checks API from GH which would make things more clear.
Do you know some other (unrelated) project(s) to look at that already use this API?
Marc
From:
"Nashif, Anas" <anas.nashif@...>
Status is actually available as a comment in the PR. We are planning at some point to use the Checks API from GH which would make things more clear. The scripts now provide the output so you do not have to look at the actual CI log which might be verbose and misleading. If any information is missing in the comments posted by CI, please let us know.
Anas
From:
<devel@...> on behalf of Marc Herbert <marc.herbert@...>
Hi Björn,
I asked this question on Slack some time back and Anas answered it's not possible (yet?) for various reasons, one of them related to github accounts and security.
Fortunately something even more useful is already possible: running the checks yourself. Just run this compliance_script.py script: https://github.com/zephyrproject-rtos/ci-tools/tree/master/scripts https://github.com/zephyrproject-rtos/ci-tools/pulls
I know run this script *before* uploading anything to github as it obviously saves round trips and time. You also need the "sanitycheck" script in the other, main repo. I think sanitycheck is mentioned in the online documentation and the check_compliance about to be.
On a related CI topic, here's why the code coverage report is very often bogus: https://github.com/codecov/codecov-bash/issues/83 thumbs up to "vote" for it
Cheers,
Marc
From:
<devel@...> on behalf of Stenberg <bjorn@...>
Can we please make the "Details" links for these checks show the actual output of the check command, rather than the current generic information about why the check exists?
--
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Re: Seeing and running what CI does (was: CODEOWNERS check in CI)
Nashif, Anas
Status is actually available as a comment in the PR. We are planning at some point to use the Checks API from GH which would make things more clear. The scripts now provide the output so you do not have to look at the actual CI log which might be verbose and misleading. If any information is missing in the comments posted by CI, please let us know.
Anas
From:
<devel@...> on behalf of Marc Herbert <marc.herbert@...>
Hi Björn,
I asked this question on Slack some time back and Anas answered it's not possible (yet?) for various reasons, one of them related to github accounts and security.
Fortunately something even more useful is already possible: running the checks yourself. Just run this compliance_script.py script: https://github.com/zephyrproject-rtos/ci-tools/tree/master/scripts https://github.com/zephyrproject-rtos/ci-tools/pulls
I know run this script *before* uploading anything to github as it obviously saves round trips and time. You also need the "sanitycheck" script in the other, main repo. I think sanitycheck is mentioned in the online documentation and the check_compliance about to be.
On a related CI topic, here's why the code coverage report is very often bogus: https://github.com/codecov/codecov-bash/issues/83 thumbs up to "vote" for it
Cheers,
Marc
From:
<devel@...> on behalf of Stenberg <bjorn@...>
Can we please make the "Details" links for these checks show the actual output of the check command, rather than the current generic information about why the check exists?
--
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Re: CODEOWNERS check in CI
Nashif, Anas
The actual output is always available in a comment posted by zephyrbot in the same PR. The comment is updated for every run. Is this what you are looking for?
Anas
From:
<devel@...> on behalf of Björn Stenberg <bjorn@...>
Can we please make the "Details" links for these checks show the actual output of the check command, rather than the current generic information about why the check exists?
-- Björn
On Sun, Feb 24, 2019 at 1:57 PM Nashif, Anas <anas.nashif@...> wrote:
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Seeing and running what CI does (was: CODEOWNERS check in CI)
Marc Herbert
Hi Björn,
I asked this question on Slack some time back and Anas answered it's not possible (yet?) for various reasons, one of them related to github accounts and security.
Fortunately something even more useful is already possible: running the checks yourself. Just run this compliance_script.py script: https://github.com/zephyrproject-rtos/ci-tools/tree/master/scripts https://github.com/zephyrproject-rtos/ci-tools/pulls
I know run this script *before* uploading anything to github as it obviously saves round trips and time. You also need the "sanitycheck" script in the other, main repo. I think sanitycheck is mentioned in the online documentation and the check_compliance about to be.
On a related CI topic, here's why the code coverage report is very often bogus: https://github.com/codecov/codecov-bash/issues/83 thumbs up to "vote" for it
Cheers,
Marc
From:
<devel@...> on behalf of Stenberg <bjorn@...>
Can we please make the "Details" links for these checks show the actual output of the check command, rather than the current generic information about why the check exists?
--
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Re: Arduino interface definition for Nordic development kits
Erwan Gouriou
Hi Aaron,
This is indeed the expected way to do it. Don't forget to also add "arduino_i2c" in boards' yaml files. Cheers Erwan
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Re: CODEOWNERS check in CI
Björn Stenberg
Can we please make the "Details" links for these checks show the actual output of the check command, rather than the current generic information about why the check exists? -- Björn
On Sun, Feb 24, 2019 at 1:57 PM Nashif, Anas <anas.nashif@...> wrote:
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
CODEOWNERS check in CI
Nashif, Anas
Hi, Recently we enabled a new CI check that verifies if newly added files are covered in the CODEOWNERS file.
For more information about the CODEOWNERS file please check https://help.github.com/en/articles/about-code-owners.
Whenever you are adding new files (new board, new driver, etc.) please add an entry in the CODEOWNERS file. This will mean that in the future you will be added as a reviewer when changes are submitted against those files and it is a way for others to know who is the maintainer of certain components without having to use `git blame` or other means.
If you think you are not the right owner of some files and you are just extending a component, please let us know (in the PR itself, on slack or per email) and we will advise what to add.
In the case where multiple names are associated with one or more files, the first name (github handle) is the maintainer/owner and additional names are co-maintainers/co-owners.
We are in the process of adding this to the documentation, so stay tuned for more information.
Regards, Anas
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|