Movatterモバイル変換


[0]ホーム

URL:


Skip to content

Navigation Menu

Sign in
Appearance settings

Search code, repositories, users, issues, pull requests...

Provide feedback

We read every piece of feedback, and take your input very seriously.

Saved searches

Use saved searches to filter your results more quickly

Sign up
Appearance settings

ci(soc): Centralize SoC config in CI and add README#12143

New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to ourterms of service andprivacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub?Sign in to your account

Draft
lucasssvaz wants to merge4 commits intomaster
base:master
Choose a base branch
Loading
fromci/soc_config

Conversation

@lucasssvaz
Copy link
Member

Description of Change

This pull request introduces a centralized configuration for System-on-Chip (SoC) targets in CI scripts, refactoring the way SoC lists and properties are managed across the project. The main improvement is the introduction of a newsocs_config.sh file, which defines all supported SoCs, their properties, and helper functions. All relevant CI scripts are updated to source this configuration, reducing duplication and making it easier to add or update SoC support. Several scripts are also refactored to use these centralized lists and helper functions, and logic is added to handle default behaviors for building and running tests across multiple targets.

Centralization of SoC Configuration:

  • Added.github/scripts/socs_config.sh containing all SoC lists, target groups, IDF version mappings, helper functions for property lookup, and computed arrays for build/test targets. This file is now sourced by all major CI scripts to provide a single source of truth for SoC support.

Refactoring CI Scripts to Use Centralized Config:

  • Updatedfind_all_boards.sh,on-push.sh,tests_build.sh,tests_matrix.sh, andtests_run.sh to sourcesocs_config.sh and use its arrays and helper functions instead of hardcoded SoC lists.[1][2][3][4][5]

Build and Test Logic Improvements:

  • Refactored build and test scripts (on-push.sh,tests_build.sh,tests_run.sh) to loop over the centralizedBUILD_TEST_TARGETS array instead of hardcoded targets, and to handle default behaviors when no target or sketch is specified, enabling builds/runs for all targets or all sketches as appropriate.[1][2][3][4][5]

QEMU and Architecture Handling:

  • Updatedtests_run.sh to use helper functions fromsocs_config.sh for QEMU support and architecture detection, improving maintainability and ensuring only supported targets are run in QEMU.

New Script for Official Variant Change Detection:

  • Addedcheck_official_variants.sh, a script to determine if CI workflows should run based on whether official variants were changed, using the centralized SoC lists for accurate detection.

Test Scenarios

Locally and GitLab CI.

@lucasssvazlucasssvaz self-assigned thisDec 16, 2025
@lucasssvazlucasssvaz added Type: CI & TestingRelated to continuous integration, automated testing, or test infrastructure. CI Failure ExpectedFor PRs where CI failure is expected labelsDec 16, 2025
@github-actions
Copy link
Contributor

github-actionsbot commentedDec 16, 2025
edited
Loading

Warnings
⚠️

Some issues found for the commit messages in this PR:

  • the commit message"Apply suggestions from code review":
    • summary looks empty
    • type/action looks empty

Please fix these commit messages - here are some basic tips:

  • followConventional Commits style
  • correct format of commit message should be:<type/action>(<scope/component>): <summary>, for examplefix(esp32): Fixed startup timeout issue
  • allowed types are:change,ci,docs,feat,fix,refactor,remove,revert,test
  • sufficiently descriptive message summary should be between 10 to 72 characters and start with upper case letter
  • avoid Jira references in commit messages (unavailable/irrelevant for our customers)

TIP: Install pre-commit hooks and run this check when committing (uses theConventional Precommit Linter).

Messages
📖This PR seems to be quite large (total lines of code: 2203), you might consider splitting it into smaller PRs

👋Hello lucasssvaz, we appreciate your contribution to this project!


📘 Please review the project'sContributions Guide for key guidelines on code, documentation, testing, and more.

🖊️ Please also make sure you haveread and signed theContributor License Agreement for this project.

Click to see more instructions ...


This automated output is generated by thePR linter DangerJS, which checks if your Pull Request meets the project's requirements and helps you fix potential issues.

DangerJS is triggered with eachpush event to a Pull Request and modify the contents of this comment.

Please consider the following:
- Danger mainly focuses on the PR structure and formatting and can't understand the meaning behind your code or changes.
- Danger isnot a substitute for human code reviews; it's still important to request a code review from your colleagues.
-Resolve all warnings (⚠️ ) before requesting a review from human reviewers - they will appreciate it.
- Addressing info messages (📖) is strongly recommended; they're less critical but valuable.
- To manuallyretry these Danger checks, please navigate to theActions tab and re-run last Danger workflow.

Review and merge process you can expect ...


We do welcome contributions in the form of bug reports, feature requests and pull requests.

1. An internal issue has been created for the PR, we assign it to the relevant engineer.
2. They review the PR and either approve it or ask you for changes or clarifications.
3. Once the GitHub PR is approved we do the final review, collect approvals from core owners and make sure all the automated tests are passing.
- At this point we may do some adjustments to the proposed change, or extend it by adding tests or documentation.
4. If the change is approved and passes the tests it is merged into the default branch.

Generated by 🚫dangerJS against8b8b3fe

@github-actions
Copy link
Contributor

github-actionsbot commentedDec 16, 2025
edited
Loading

Test Results

 90 files   90 suites   30m 56s ⏱️
 66 tests  66 ✅ 0 💤 0 ❌
675 runs  675 ✅ 0 💤 0 ❌

Results for commit8b8b3fe.

♻️ This comment has been updated with latest results.

@github-actions
Copy link
Contributor

Memory usage test (comparing PR against master branch)

The table below shows the summary of memory usage change (decrease - increase) in bytes and percentage for each target.

MemoryFLASH [bytes]FLASH [%]RAM [bytes]RAM [%]
TargetDECINCDECINCDECINCDECINC
ESP32000.000.00000.000.00
ESP32C3000.000.00000.000.00
ESP32C5000.000.00000.000.00
ESP32C6000.000.00000.000.00
ESP32H2000.000.00000.000.00
ESP32P4000.000.00000.000.00
ESP32S2000.000.00000.000.00
ESP32S3000.000.00000.000.00
Click to expand the detailed deltas report [usage change in BYTES]
TargetESP32ESP32C3ESP32C5ESP32C6ESP32H2ESP32P4ESP32S2ESP32S3
ExampleFLASHRAMFLASHRAMFLASHRAMFLASHRAMFLASHRAMFLASHRAMFLASHRAMFLASHRAM
libraries/BLE/examples/Server000000000000----
libraries/ESP32/examples/Camera/CameraWebServer00----------00--
ESP32/examples/Camera/CameraWebServer (2)00----------00--
libraries/Insights/examples/MinimalDiagnostics00000000----00--
libraries/NetworkClientSecure/examples/WiFiClientSecure00000000--0000--
ESP32/examples/Camera/CameraWebServer (3)----------------

Copy link
Member

@P-R-O-C-H-YP-R-O-C-H-Y left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others.Learn more.

Nice improvement@lucasssvaz. Added ReadMe will be also handy ;)

lucasssvaz reacted with thumbs up emoji
@lucasssvazlucasssvaz marked this pull request as draftDecember 19, 2025 18:33
@lucasssvazlucasssvaz added the Status: Blocked upstream 🛑PR is waiting on upstream changes to be merged first labelDec 19, 2025
Sign up for freeto join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account?Sign in to comment

Reviewers

@pedrominatelpedrominatelpedrominatel approved these changes

@P-R-O-C-H-YP-R-O-C-H-YP-R-O-C-H-Y approved these changes

Assignees

@lucasssvazlucasssvaz

Labels

CI Failure ExpectedFor PRs where CI failure is expectedStatus: Blocked upstream 🛑PR is waiting on upstream changes to be merged firstType: CI & TestingRelated to continuous integration, automated testing, or test infrastructure.

Projects

None yet

Milestone

No milestone

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

4 participants

@lucasssvaz@pedrominatel@P-R-O-C-H-Y

[8]ページ先頭

©2009-2025 Movatter.jp