This repository was archived by the owner on Mar 5, 2025. It is now read-only.
Create an xtask package to build the stubs and convert them to JSON
#18
Conversation
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
4 tasks
Sign up for free
to subscribe to this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in.
3 participants
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
The
xtaskpackage has two subcommands: build and wrap, which allow you to build the stub for a given chip and subsequently convert it to JSON format. This completes one task outlined in #17.I've also updated the CI workflow, mostly to prepare for the addition of the ESP32-C6 and ESP32-H2. Additionally I have added a release workflow to automatically generate and upload the JSON stubs whenever a release is created.
I've also updated the README a bit.
Even though CI is green, I've noticed that building for the ESP32-S2 results in a linker error; this is the case in
mainas well. I know @MabezDev was working on updating the stubs, so hopefully this resolves itself with that PR whenever it lands. Maybe we shouldcargo buildinstead ofcargo checkin CI to test for this in the future.