mirror of
https://github.com/apache/nuttx.git
synced 2026-09-29 02:23:51 +00:00
44cdacf607
The memory report builds this pull request merged into master, together with the nuttx-apps default branch, and nothing else, so a companion or predecessor pull request it declares is absent. For a breaking change the target then fails to build and no report is produced at all, even though the Build workflow already tests the declared sources through Depends-On. Apply the declared dependencies before building, reusing the parser and the fetch/cherry-pick sequence that build.yml uses, and mapping each repository to its checkout exactly as build.yml does. A stacked nuttx dependency is no more optional than an apps one: a pull request that uses an API its predecessor introduces does not build without it. As build.yml does, read the description through the API rather than trusting the event payload, so that a manual re-run after editing a Depends-On line applies the current declaration instead of the one the run was created with. Unlike build.yml, a failed read stops the job rather than falling back to the payload: build.yml resolves this once and hands every target the same tree, while this job runs per target, so a fallback could leave targets on different declarations while their results are filed under one SHA. A declared dependency that cannot be applied fails the job, and so does a missing parser, a parser crash, or a status this step does not recognise: each of those means the declaration was never evaluated, and continuing would measure a combination nobody asked for. build.yml fails Fetch-Source on the same conditions, and no other step in this job carries continue-on-error, so falling back silently would be inconsistent with both. A declaration that parses to nothing valid only warns, again matching build.yml. Forward the parser's warnings too. --print-state prints only the state, so an entry the parser drops -- an unsupported repository, say -- would otherwise leave no trace here at all, although build.yml annotates it, and the source set named below would be silently incomplete. The report is filed under the pull request head SHA rather than the SHA of the tree that was built, so the measurement cannot be reproduced from that SHA alone and cannot be split per dependency. That limits provenance, not the measurement: a combined result is what the declaration asks for, and a regression that only appears in combination is still a regression. Name the whole source set in the step summary so the reader knows which heads went into the number. Note in the parser that the --print-state output is a parsed contract; the edit gate that used to be its only caller is gone. Update the CI documentation to match. Its Pull Request Dependencies section attributes dependency application to build.yml's Fetch-Source job alone, so after this change it would read as if the memory report measured the normal source selection. Cross-reference the two sections rather than restating the rules, which stay shared. Signed-off-by: zhangning21 <zhangning21@xiaomi.com> |
||
|---|---|---|
| .. | ||
| actions | ||
| ISSUE_TEMPLATE | ||
| linters | ||
| scripts | ||
| workflows | ||
| CODEOWNERS | ||
| dependabot.yml | ||
| gcc.json | ||
| labeler.yml | ||
| membrowse-targets.json | ||
| nxstyle.json | ||
| PULL_REQUEST_TEMPLATE.md | ||
| SECURITY.md | ||