-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 2.1k
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
YAML Updates 3-20-24 #32659
YAML Updates 3-20-24 #32659
Conversation
So...this isn't a purely editorial change. The change to the groups ID changes the test behaviour. Did this work previously? |
PR #32659: Size comparison from c644692 to b061215 Decreases (2 builds for efr32)
Full report (72 builds for bl602, bl702, bl702l, cc13x4_26x4, cc32xx, cyw30739, efr32, esp32, k32w, linux, mbed, nrfconnect, psoc6, qpg, stm32, telink)
|
PR #32659: Size comparison from 0f9542b to 495257c Decreases (2 builds for efr32)
Full report (72 builds for bl602, bl702, bl702l, cc13x4_26x4, cc32xx, cyw30739, efr32, esp32, k32w, linux, mbed, nrfconnect, psoc6, qpg, stm32, telink)
|
…6.yaml, Test_TC_CNET_4_9.yaml, Test_TC_CNET_4_10.yaml, Test_TC_CNET_4_11.yaml, Test_TC_CNET_4_15.yaml, Test_TC_CNET_4_16.yaml, Test_TC_CNET_4_22.yaml
PR #32659: Size comparison from 0f9542b to 4928bd4 Decreases (2 builds for efr32)
Full report (72 builds for bl602, bl702, bl702l, cc13x4_26x4, cc32xx, cyw30739, efr32, esp32, k32w, linux, mbed, nrfconnect, psoc6, qpg, stm32, telink)
|
PR #32659: Size comparison from db74b20 to 91f776a Decreases (2 builds for efr32)
Full report (72 builds for bl602, bl702, bl702l, cc13x4_26x4, cc32xx, cyw30739, efr32, esp32, k32w, linux, mbed, nrfconnect, psoc6, qpg, stm32, telink)
|
Yes, it works before the change |
PR #32659: Size comparison from f1abb59 to fc26192 Decreases (1 build for efr32)
Full report (71 builds for bl602, bl702, bl702l, cc13x4_26x4, cc32xx, cyw30739, efr32, esp32, k32w, linux, mbed, nrfconnect, psoc6, qpg, stm32, telink)
|
ok....it looks like only group 0x103 has been given access. I suppose this is fine, but why was this changed to use 0x104 rather than 0x101? |
* Updates Test_TC_BRBINFO_1_1.yaml, Test_TC_TSUIC_1_1.yaml * Updates Test_TC_ACE_1_6.yaml * Restores Test_TC_BRBINFO_1_1.yaml * Updates Test_TC_CNET_4_4.yaml, Test_TC_CNET_4_5.yaml, Test_TC_CNET_4_6.yaml, Test_TC_CNET_4_9.yaml, Test_TC_CNET_4_10.yaml, Test_TC_CNET_4_11.yaml, Test_TC_CNET_4_15.yaml, Test_TC_CNET_4_16.yaml, Test_TC_CNET_4_22.yaml
* Updates Test_TC_BRBINFO_1_1.yaml, Test_TC_TSUIC_1_1.yaml * Updates Test_TC_ACE_1_6.yaml * Restores Test_TC_BRBINFO_1_1.yaml * Updates Test_TC_CNET_4_4.yaml, Test_TC_CNET_4_5.yaml, Test_TC_CNET_4_6.yaml, Test_TC_CNET_4_9.yaml, Test_TC_CNET_4_10.yaml, Test_TC_CNET_4_11.yaml, Test_TC_CNET_4_15.yaml, Test_TC_CNET_4_16.yaml, Test_TC_CNET_4_22.yaml Co-authored-by: Raul Marquez <[email protected]> Co-authored-by: C Freeman <[email protected]>
Issues covered:
Script has to be updated as per test plan changes #103
[TC-ACE-1.6] Script has to be updated as per test plan changes #100
[CNET] Script has to be updated as per test plan #82
Tests updated: