Add script to build the rust sdk locally and from different repo / branch

[bmarty]

Type of change

• Feature
• Bugfix
• Technical
• Other :

Content

Add a script to build the Rust SDK.

Motivation and context

Ease the way to test Rust branch, even from forks, or to test a local version of the rust sdk source

Screenshots / GIFs

NA

Tests

• run the script and see if it works as expected

Tested devices

• MacOS

Checklist

• Changes have been tested on an Android device or Android emulator with API 23
• UI change has been tested on both light and dark themes
• Accessibility has been taken into account. See https://github.com/vector-im/element-x-android/blob/develop/CONTRIBUTING.md#accessibility
• Pull request is based on the develop branch
• Pull request includes a new file under ./changelog.d. See https://github.com/vector-im/element-x-android/blob/develop/CONTRIBUTING.md#changelog
• Pull request includes screenshots or videos if containing UI changes
• Pull request includes a sign off
• You've made a self review of your PR

[julioromano]

Just for safety, could we make it so that this if works only for debug builds? (i.e. release builds will always use implementation(libs.matrix.sdk) no matter what?)

[bmarty]

Good point. It's not possible to commit the sdk: *.aar file are git ignored, so I think it's fine. The idea is to avoid editing this file (and so committing it by mistake)

[julioromano]

Yeah but adding a releaseImplementation() and haveing the if using only debugImplementation could be an additional layer of safety

[bmarty]

You mean having something like:

    releaseImplementation(libs.matrix.sdk)
    if (file("${rootDir.path}/libraries/rustsdk/matrix-rust-sdk.aar").exists()) {
        println("\nNote: Using local binary of the Rust SDK.\n")
        debugImplementation(projects.libraries.rustsdk)
    } else {
        debugImplementation(libs.matrix.sdk)
    }

?

I am wondering now if we may want to test the release build with a local SDK :)

[julioromano]

Yes. That's what I had in mind. In the rare case we'd like to test a release build with a local sdk we'll have to manually change the gradle file.
This seems to me an added level of safety. But if you feel I'm being paranoid don't be afraid to say it, sometimes I am.

[bmarty]

Works for me. Better safe than sorry!

[jmartinesp]

Thanks for the script, it's a lot easier than doing it all manually! I found a couple of issues, though.

Also, maybe we should check if both ANDROID_NDK_HOME is set and >= v25?

[jmartinesp]

Won't this only work for ARM64 emulators/devices? Maybe the user who builds this wants to use an x86-64 emulator in Linux/Windows.

[bmarty]

Yes, I'll take this as a limitation of the script, but i will update the message so that it will be clearer.

[julioromano]

You could use uname -m to get the architecture and invoke the correct option.
We could reasonably assume, being this for local use, crosscompilation is not a goal.

So if uname -m is x86_64 we build the x86_64 version.
If uname -m is amd64 we build the aarch64 version.

[julioromano]

More hints at: https://askubuntu.com/questions/803596/cpu-architecture-scanning-using-bash

[julioromano]

Thanks for the script, it's a lot easier than doing it all manually! I found a couple of issues, though.

Also, maybe we should check if both ANDROID_NDK_HOME is set and >= v25?

There's v26 since a while and it compiles correctly with it, should we bother keeping the NDK requirement up to date?

[jmartinesp]

Thanks for the script, it's a lot easier than doing it all manually! I found a couple of issues, though.
Also, maybe we should check if both ANDROID_NDK_HOME is set and >= v25?

There's v26 since a while and it compiles correctly with it, should we bother keeping the NDK requirement up to date?

The bindings will fail to build with NDK <23, but maybe it's not worth it since that version is pretty old, and it would also be difficult to check.

[sonarcloud]

Kudos, SonarCloud Quality Gate passed!   

0 Bugs
0 Vulnerabilities
0 Security Hotspots
0 Code Smells

No Coverage information
0.0% Duplication

[codecov]

Codecov Report

All modified lines are covered by tests ✅

Comparison is base (7fc81ac) 59.01% compared to head (21e2499) 59.01%.
Report is 5 commits behind head on develop.

Additional details and impacted files

@@           Coverage Diff            @@
##           develop    #1582   +/-   ##
========================================
  Coverage    59.01%   59.01%           
========================================
  Files         1192     1192           
  Lines        30844    30844           
  Branches      6338     6338           
========================================
  Hits         18204    18204           
  Misses        9896     9896           
  Partials      2744     2744           

☔ View full report in Codecov by Sentry.
📢 Have feedback on the report? Share it here.

[github-actions]

📱 Scan the QR code below to install the build (arm64 only) for this PR.

If you can't scan the QR code you can install the build via this link: https://i.diawi.com/n4v41L

[jmartinesp]

LGTM, thanks for the changes!