TEST: add atecc608a example to compilation test #11475

jamesbeyond · 2019-09-12T15:57:07Z

Description

add atecc608a example to compilation test

Pull request type

[ ] Fix
[ ] Refactor
[ ] Target update
[ ] Functionality change
[ ] Docs update
[x] Test update
[ ] Breaking change

Reviewers

@adbridge

Release Notes

Patater · 2019-09-12T16:06:53Z

tools/test/examples/examples.json

+        "mbed": [],
+        "test-repo-source": "github",
+        "features" : [],
+        "targets" : ["K64F"],


Any target with I2C should work, although maybe this list is how you keep integration testing from growing too big.

That is might depends on which target in the RaaS got the atecc608a shield. Also it is true we don't want to compile the exampled for too many target, it will not slow down the testing process

Patater · 2019-09-12T16:08:08Z

tools/test/examples/examples.json

+        "test" : false,
+        "baud_rate": 9600,
+        "compare_log": ["mbed-os-example-atecc608a/tests/atecc608a.log"],
+        "auto-update" : true


Is examples.json the place to specify which RaaS tag is required to run the example (in this case, it'd be HAS_CRYPTOKIT)

This file has no control of which tatget in RaaS to use at moment. but no harm to put the info here, we'll need to sort that out in the test part

adbridge

LGTM other than Jaeden's comments

0xc0170 · 2019-09-13T14:01:03Z

CI started

mbed-ci · 2019-09-13T14:48:22Z

Test run: FAILED

Summary: 3 of 4 test jobs failed
Build number : 1
Build artifacts

Failed test jobs:

jenkins-ci/mbed-os-ci_build-ARM
jenkins-ci/mbed-os-ci_build-IAR
jenkins-ci/mbed-os-ci_build-GCC_ARM

Patater · 2019-09-13T16:43:18Z

We may also need to restrict which compilers this example runs with, as Microchip's cryptoauthlib (which we depend on) doesn't build with ARMC or IAR.

0xc0170 · 2019-09-16T07:32:20Z

CI restarted, internal fault

mbed-ci · 2019-09-16T08:41:24Z

Test run: FAILED

Summary: 3 of 4 test jobs failed
Build number : 2
Build artifacts

Failed test jobs:

jenkins-ci/mbed-os-ci_build-ARM
jenkins-ci/mbed-os-ci_build-GCC_ARM
jenkins-ci/mbed-os-ci_build-IAR

0xc0170 · 2019-09-16T09:24:19Z

We may also need to restrict which compilers this example runs with, as Microchip's cryptoauthlib (which we depend on) doesn't build with ARMC or IAR.

@jamesbeyond Please review. The latest build failures are for all toolchains. There is a code 1 returned from the script and failing for this addition.

Patater · 2019-09-16T09:50:45Z

tools/test/examples/examples.json

@@ -469,9 +469,9 @@
        "github": "https://github.com/ARMmbed/mbed-os-example-atecc608a",
        "mbed": [],
        "test-repo-source": "github",
-        "features" : [],
+        "features" : ["HAS_CRYPTOKIT"],


Does this "features" setting correlate at all with the RaaS tag? There is no HAS_CRYPTOKIT Mbed OS feature.

jamesbeyond · 2019-09-16T09:51:58Z

HI @0xc0170 @Patater ,
I update the script to restrict only compile by GCC_ARM
But however, checking the log, seem GCC_ARM compile also failed.

[DEBUG] Errors: /builds/ws/mbed-os-ci_build-GCC_ARM@3/examples/mbed-os-example-atecc608a/./mbed-os/features/frameworks/unity/source/unity.c:192: multiple definition of `UnityDefaultTestRun'
[DEBUG] Errors: BUILD/K64F/GCC_ARM/atecc608a/mbed-os-atecc608a/mbed-cryptoauthlib/cryptoauthlib/test/unity.o:/usr/local/gcc-arm-none-eabi-6-2017-q1-update/arm-none-eabi/include/stdio.h:689: first defined here
[DEBUG] Errors: BUILD/K64F/GCC_ARM/mbed-os/features/frameworks/unity/source/unity.o: In function `UnityPrintNumberUnsigned':

I think this is because the example in the folder of mbed-os-example-atecc608a/atecc608a/ but our test infra will create a mbed-os folder in mbed-os-example-atecc608a/

Any explaination why the example have a extra atecc608a folder inside the example folder mbed-os-example-atecc608a/ ? @Patater

Patater · 2019-09-16T10:27:57Z

Any explaination why the example have a extra atecc608a folder inside the example folder mbed-os-example-atecc608a/ ?

The Mbed TLS example testing CI needs each example to be in its own folder so we can test it. For Mbed OS CI, I think some hg mirroring scripts need to be updated in order to support this. However, we are able to get away with the subfolder approach without hg script changes in https://github.com/ARMmbed/mbed-os-example-mbed-crypto/. I'm not sure why that example would work with this shape but not atecc, if the example shape is the problem.

0xc0170 · 2019-09-16T11:11:12Z

CI restarted

mbed-ci · 2019-09-16T11:53:39Z

Test run: FAILED

Summary: 1 of 4 test jobs failed
Build number : 3
Build artifacts

Failed test jobs:

jenkins-ci/mbed-os-ci_build-IAR

0xc0170 · 2019-09-16T12:08:02Z

CI restarted

mbed-ci · 2019-09-16T13:36:58Z

Test run: SUCCESS

Summary: 11 of 11 test jobs passed
Build number : 4
Build artifacts

0xc0170 · 2019-09-16T13:40:46Z

Does this "features" setting correlate at all with the RaaS tag? There is no HAS_CRYPTOKIT Mbed OS feature.

The last question for this one to land, @jamesbeyond Please review . otherwise looks good to me

jamesbeyond · 2019-09-16T13:44:15Z

@0xc0170, I believe I do need to revisit this PR, and changed the HAS_CRYPTOKIT feature, that Jaeden pointed out. I'll let you know as soon as this is ready

jamesbeyond · 2019-09-16T14:45:42Z

I reverted the feature tag of HAS_CRYPTOKIT, becasue it block this example being build on K64F, I'll see how the CI build works. if the CI passed, I am happy about this change.

0xc0170 · 2019-09-16T14:59:41Z

CI restarted

jamesbeyond · 2019-09-17T15:18:33Z

@0xc0170 , Just talked with @Patater , he made a PR from the example side to fix the issue, I think we are good to restart CI, this can still going into 5.14 RC3

mbed-ci · 2019-09-17T15:55:45Z

Test run: FAILED

Summary: 1 of 4 test jobs failed
Build number : 9
Build artifacts

Failed test jobs:

jenkins-ci/mbed-os-ci_build-GCC_ARM

0xc0170 · 2019-09-17T19:54:54Z

@0xc0170 , Just talked with @Patater , he made a PR from the example side to fix the issue, I think we are good to restart CI, this can still going into 5.14 RC3

The failure are related. I think the same as previous ones, was it fixed?

jamesbeyond · 2019-09-18T09:06:10Z

The failure are related. I think the same as previous ones, was it fixed?

This failure is different from previous one, the reason for this is because our build testing configured to build from the root of the example folder, where the actual example is build from a sub folder inside root example folder. the solutions would be.

for temperate fixing:
Hi @Patater, seems only copy .mbedignore seems not enough, mbed_apps.json also need to be copied to the root.

Long term fixing:
we will fixing it from CI level, to enable the script handles examples with sub-folders correctly. but this will happen after 5.14 release.

adbridge · 2019-10-11T10:22:51Z

@jamesbeyond what is the state of this ?

jamesbeyond · 2019-10-11T10:36:00Z

as far as I can see, this won't make to 5.14.1, because the example changes is on going. this will to wait for another PR, which is not created yet. So let's postpone it to 5.14.2 @adbridge

jamesbeyond · 2019-10-18T23:45:04Z

This PR will need to wait #11710 to be merged first

mbed-ci · 2019-11-01T01:28:40Z

Test run: SUCCESS

Summary: 11 of 11 test jobs passed
Build number : 10
Build artifacts

jamesbeyond · 2019-11-01T09:52:05Z

The update of scripts is done. and In this PR the new example been added, also the temporarily turned off sub examples are turned back on for complication tests. Seems the CI passed as expected, I think this PR is good to go @ARMmbed/mbed-os-maintainers

jamesbeyond added the release-version: 5.14.0-rc3 label Sep 12, 2019

Patater reviewed Sep 12, 2019

View reviewed changes

adbridge approved these changes Sep 12, 2019

View reviewed changes

0xc0170 approved these changes Sep 13, 2019

View reviewed changes

0xc0170 added the needs: CI label Sep 13, 2019

0xc0170 added needs: work and removed needs: CI labels Sep 16, 2019

Patater reviewed Sep 16, 2019

View reviewed changes

0xc0170 added needs: review and removed needs: work labels Sep 16, 2019

0xc0170 added needs: work and removed needs: review labels Sep 16, 2019

jamesbeyond force-pushed the exp_update branch from 5615918 to 31fa073 Compare September 16, 2019 14:41

0xc0170 removed the needs: work label Sep 16, 2019

adbridge added needs: CI and removed needs: work labels Sep 17, 2019

0xc0170 added release-version: 5.14.1 needs: work and removed release-version: 5.14.0-rc3 needs: CI labels Sep 18, 2019

adbridge added release-version: 5.14.2 and removed release-version: 5.14.1 labels Oct 11, 2019

0xc0170 added needs: preceding PR and removed needs: work labels Oct 21, 2019

Qinghao Shi added 3 commits October 31, 2019 23:57

TEST: add atecc608a example to compilation test

38776fb

TEST: update example.json file

e4188b6

TEST: turn on sub examples build test

6d47ec3

jamesbeyond force-pushed the exp_update branch from 31fa073 to 6d47ec3 Compare November 1, 2019 00:08

jamesbeyond added needs: CI and removed needs: preceding PR labels Nov 1, 2019

0xc0170 added ready for merge and removed needs: CI ready for merge labels Nov 4, 2019

0xc0170 merged commit d3fb5fb into ARMmbed:master Nov 4, 2019

jamesbeyond deleted the exp_update branch November 6, 2019 11:17

TEST: add atecc608a example to compilation test #11475

TEST: add atecc608a example to compilation test #11475

Uh oh!

Conversation

jamesbeyond commented Sep 12, 2019

Description

Pull request type

Reviewers

Release Notes

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

adbridge left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

0xc0170 commented Sep 13, 2019

Uh oh!

mbed-ci commented Sep 13, 2019

Uh oh!

Patater commented Sep 13, 2019

Uh oh!

0xc0170 commented Sep 16, 2019

Uh oh!

mbed-ci commented Sep 16, 2019

Uh oh!

0xc0170 commented Sep 16, 2019

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

jamesbeyond commented Sep 16, 2019 • edited Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Patater commented Sep 16, 2019

Uh oh!

0xc0170 commented Sep 16, 2019

Uh oh!

mbed-ci commented Sep 16, 2019

Uh oh!

0xc0170 commented Sep 16, 2019

Uh oh!

mbed-ci commented Sep 16, 2019

Uh oh!

0xc0170 commented Sep 16, 2019

Uh oh!

jamesbeyond commented Sep 16, 2019

Uh oh!

jamesbeyond commented Sep 16, 2019

Uh oh!

0xc0170 commented Sep 16, 2019

Uh oh!

jamesbeyond commented Sep 17, 2019

Uh oh!

mbed-ci commented Sep 17, 2019

Uh oh!

0xc0170 commented Sep 17, 2019

Uh oh!

jamesbeyond commented Sep 18, 2019 • edited Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

adbridge commented Oct 11, 2019

Uh oh!

jamesbeyond commented Oct 11, 2019

Uh oh!

jamesbeyond commented Oct 18, 2019

Uh oh!

mbed-ci commented Nov 1, 2019

Uh oh!

jamesbeyond commented Nov 1, 2019

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

jamesbeyond commented Sep 16, 2019 •

edited

Loading

jamesbeyond commented Sep 18, 2019 •

edited

Loading