Skip to content
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

cFS-Bundle Integration Candidate:2021-08-10 #333

Merged
merged 5 commits into from
Aug 11, 2021
Merged

Conversation

astrogeco
Copy link
Contributor

@astrogeco astrogeco commented Aug 6, 2021

Checklist (Please check before submitting)

Describe the contribution

PR #332

PR #323

Also Combines

Includes

cFE

osal

Testing performed

cFE Checks https://github.com/nasa/cFE/pull/1772/checks
cFS Checks https://github.com/nasa/cFS/pull/333/checks
osal Checks https://github.com/nasa/osal/pull/1127/checks

Expected behavior changes
See PRs

System(s) tested on

CI

Ubuntu 18.04
RTEMS 4.11 (qemu)
RTEMS 5.0 (qemu)

Additional context
None

Contributor Info - All information REQUIRED for consideration of pull request

@jphickey
@zanzaben
@nmullane
@PavLL
@astrogeco
@ArielSAdamsNASA

Moves the branch push check conditional "up" in the documentation build
workflow. The check now happens at the deploy job level instead of the
deploy step step for both the deploy-usersguide and deploy-osalguide.

This saves time by preventing loading extra VMs in pull requests and
other repository push events.
@astrogeco
Copy link
Contributor Author

@nmullane, @zanzaben looks like the test app isn't compiling isn't compiling on RTEMS

@zanzaben
Copy link
Contributor

zanzaben commented Aug 9, 2021

@nmullane, @zanzaben looks like the test app isn't compiling isn't compiling on RTEMS

@jphickey thoughts?

@zanzaben
Copy link
Contributor

zanzaben commented Aug 9, 2021

@nmullane your CFE_FT_Global changes are conflicting with nasa/cFE#1737

@astrogeco
Copy link
Contributor Author

astrogeco commented Aug 9, 2021

@nmullane your CFE_FT_Global changes are conflicting with nasa/cFE#1737

weird I thought I resolved them, and they seemed to work on Linux
https://github.com/astrogeco/cFE/actions?query=branch%3Aic-2021-08-10++

@nmullane
Copy link
Contributor

nmullane commented Aug 9, 2021

@nmullane your CFE_FT_Global changes are conflicting with nasa/cFE#1737

I didn't think my table api functional tests were going to be included in this integration candidate, so I was waiting for nasa/cFE#1737 to be merged before updating my pr for the CCB this week.

@astrogeco
Copy link
Contributor Author

my bad you all, this is what happens when I skip a couple of tagups :)

@astrogeco
Copy link
Contributor Author

astrogeco commented Aug 9, 2021

So looking at this more closely, only debug mode fails in Linux

Nvm that looks like a runner hiccup not a real fail

@astrogeco
Copy link
Contributor Author

@zanzaben I don't think this is an actual conflict, wouldn't it fail to build on Linux if it were?

**Combines**

- nasa/cFE#1772, v6.8.0-rc1+dev844
- nasa/osal#1127, v5.1.0-rc1+dev590

**Includes**

*cFE*

- nasa/cFE#1737, Move global count into test global struct.
- nasa/cFE#1722, Add ES application control API functional tests
- nasa/cFE#1743, Update coverage test to use UtAssert macros
- nasa/cFE#1734, Add table api functional tests
- nasa/cFE#1753, Add Generic Counter API test
- nasa/cFE#1766, finish ES misc API functional test
- nasa/cFE#1764, last char truncated in coverage log output
- nasa/cFE#1728, Mistakes in some copyright headers
- nasa/cFE#1767, Add misc time api functional test cFE
- nasa/cFE#1749, Add Functional Test for EVS Reset Filters API
- nasa/cFE#1781, RTEMS CFE_FT_Global build failure
- nasa/cFE#1796, replace VOIDCALL assert macro

*osal*

- nasa/osal#1117, Add absolute branch coverage check

Co-authored-by: Joseph Hickey <[email protected]>
Co-authored-by: Alex Campbell <[email protected]>
Co-authored-by: Niall Mullane <[email protected]>
Co-authored-by: Paul <[email protected]>
Fix #331, Skip deploy job instead of step
@astrogeco astrogeco marked this pull request as ready for review August 11, 2021 02:00
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

Skip documentation deploy job instead of step when not pushing to main Add Discussions in Contributing Guide
4 participants