TEST: add atecc608a example to compilation test

[jamesbeyond]

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]

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

[jamesbeyond]

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]

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

[jamesbeyond]

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]

CI started

[mbed-ci]

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]

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]

CI restarted, internal fault

[mbed-ci]

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]

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]

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

[jamesbeyond]

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]

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]

CI restarted

[mbed-ci]

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]

CI restarted

[mbed-ci]

Test run: SUCCESS

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

[0xc0170]

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]

@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]

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]

CI restarted

[mbed-ci]

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]

@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]

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]

@jamesbeyond what is the state of this ?

[jamesbeyond]

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]

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

[mbed-ci]

Test run: SUCCESS

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

[jamesbeyond]

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