Skip to content

Filesystem: Restructure the filesystem api to be consistent with mbed OS #3773

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 our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Merged
merged 10 commits into from
Feb 25, 2017

Conversation

geky
Copy link
Contributor

@geky geky commented Feb 14, 2017

This patch restructures the filesystem components to be consistent with other mbed style apis.

Note: No changes to the posix api, filesystem tests were passing without changes
Note: Not sure this pr will make it in, this has less priority than the other components of the storage branch, so feel free to dismiss.

cc @simonqhughes

@geky geky requested a review from simonqhughes February 14, 2017 14:25
@geky geky changed the title Filesystem: Restructured the filesystem to be consistent with other mbed style apis Filesystem: Restructure the filesystem api to be consistent with mbed OS Feb 14, 2017
@geky geky force-pushed the fs-filesystem-simple-3 branch 2 times, most recently from efe9d87 to 8b63749 Compare February 14, 2017 16:40
@sg-
Copy link
Contributor

sg- commented Feb 17, 2017

/morph test-nightly

@mbed-bot
Copy link

Result: FAILURE

Your command has finished executing! Here's what you wrote!

/morph test-nightly

Output

mbed Build Number: 1632

Build failed!

@bridadan
Copy link
Contributor

/morph test-nightly

@mbed-bot
Copy link

Result: FAILURE

Your command has finished executing! Here's what you wrote!

/morph test-nightly

Output

mbed Build Number: 1650

Build failed!

@0xc0170
Copy link
Contributor

0xc0170 commented Feb 20, 2017

@geky What are the failures? I had a look it differs between those 2 builds and do not seem to be related. I'll restart.

Is this intended to be merged prior #3762 (thus would become part of it) ? @simonqhughes please comment. Looking at the scope of this, it should get in if it's ready, otherwise will be postponed for the next minor version.

/morph test-nightly

@bridadan
Copy link
Contributor

@0xc0170 The first failure was an issue with infrastructure and can be ignored. The second failure however is a real failure. It looks like some of the tests being built are too big for certain platforms?

@geky
Copy link
Contributor Author

geky commented Feb 23, 2017

I'm going to have to check the CI again once it completes, I was having a hard time understanding the errors. If this is under consideration it may be impossible to get in until #3762 is merged.

I'm going to run CI again for more info since the servers don't seem too stressed out.
/morph test-nightly

@mbed-bot
Copy link

Result: FAILURE

Your command has finished executing! Here's what you wrote!

/morph test-nightly

Output

mbed Build Number: 1684

Build failed!

@0xc0170
Copy link
Contributor

0xc0170 commented Feb 23, 2017

From the logs, what I saw there - few overflow sections (tests are too big) and one undefined file handle (I think it was LPC1768), please have a look at those failures

@geky geky force-pushed the fs-filesystem-simple-3 branch from ba341d9 to 929958b Compare February 23, 2017 17:32
@geky geky force-pushed the fs-filesystem-simple-3 branch from 929958b to 38a29d3 Compare February 24, 2017 18:05
@geky geky changed the base branch from feature-storage to master February 24, 2017 18:05
@mbed-bot
Copy link

Result: FAILURE

Your command has finished executing! Here's what you wrote!

/morph test-nightly

Output

mbed Build Number: 1592

Test failed!

@geky geky force-pushed the fs-filesystem-simple-3 branch from 38a29d3 to 129bae4 Compare February 24, 2017 21:29
@geky
Copy link
Contributor Author

geky commented Feb 24, 2017

/morph test-nightly

@sg- sg- added needs: CI and removed needs: work labels Feb 24, 2017
@mbed-bot
Copy link

Result: SUCCESS

Your command has finished executing! Here's what you wrote!

/morph test-nightly

Output

mbed Build Number: 1593

All builds and test passed!

@geky
Copy link
Contributor Author

geky commented Feb 25, 2017

@sg- LGTM!

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

5 participants