feat: support change detection in config#592
Merged
Conversation
github-actions
bot
added
documentation
AtomicFS
force-pushed
the
feat/support-change-detection-in-config
branch
5 times, most recently
from
ec78153 to
a04aafd
Compare
AtomicFS
force-pushed
the
feat/support-change-detection-in-config
branch
from
a04aafd to
7240786
Compare
AtomicFS
force-pushed
the
feat/support-change-detection-in-config
branch
3 times, most recently
from
55da77a to
b9c745a
Compare
AtomicFS
force-pushed
the
feat/support-change-detection-in-config
branch
3 times, most recently
from
3eafdbe to
832ac6f
Compare
MDr164
reviewed
Mar 3, 2025
AtomicFS
force-pushed
the
feat/support-change-detection-in-config
branch
from
832ac6f to
02a237f
Compare
github-actions
bot
added
dependencies
AtomicFS
force-pushed
the
feat/support-change-detection-in-config
branch
from
02a237f to
d1fc68d
Compare
AtomicFS
force-pushed
the
feat/support-change-detection-in-config
branch
from
d1fc68d to
8e0289b
Compare
AtomicFS
force-pushed
the
feat/support-change-detection-in-config
branch
from
8e0289b to
8559320
Compare
AtomicFS
force-pushed
the
feat/support-change-detection-in-config
branch
from
8559320 to
45e15ed
Compare
MDr164
reviewed
Mar 4, 2025
AtomicFS
force-pushed
the
feat/support-change-detection-in-config
branch
from
45e15ed to
329c933
Compare
- function to create a safe name for file hopefully in any filesystem on any OS - the module names are user-defined, and since we cannot grantee their sanity, we should sanitize them before using them as file names Signed-off-by: AtomicFS <vojtech.vesely@9elements.com>
Signed-off-by: AtomicFS <vojtech.vesely@9elements.com>
Signed-off-by: AtomicFS <vojtech.vesely@9elements.com>
Signed-off-by: AtomicFS <vojtech.vesely@9elements.com>
AI-Generated: true AI-Model: claude-3.5-sonnet Signed-off-by: AtomicFS <vojtech.vesely@9elements.com>
- since we already have the Filenamify function, lets also use it for the time-stamps, to make it resilient to weird user-inputs Signed-off-by: AtomicFS <vojtech.vesely@9elements.com>
Signed-off-by: AtomicFS <vojtech.vesely@9elements.com>
Signed-off-by: AtomicFS <vojtech.vesely@9elements.com>
- makes for easier debugging Signed-off-by: AtomicFS <vojtech.vesely@9elements.com>
AtomicFS
force-pushed
the
feat/support-change-detection-in-config
branch
from
329c933 to
ac7e3a2
Compare
MDr164
approved these changes
Mar 4, 2025
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
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
2 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.
This PR adds the ability to firmware-action to detect changes in the JSON configuration file and re-build only the affected module (and possibly modules that depend on it).
And yeah, I know that simple checksum of the config file would do the job, but I just wanted to avoid running build on modules that do not need it. It will make
firmware-actionjust a bit faster this way.I did consider to save into a file only the small struct related to each module, but it was proving to be far too much work. So instead we save the whole configuration file (for each module separately) and only compare the relevant modules between these two configurations (between the snapshot saved in
./firmware-actionand current config).There is no test for this. At least not yet. Should I make a the test for this? I am kinda lazy. But I guess I should ... 😪OK, I made a test for this. It is not very comprehensive, but I think it is good enough.
fixes #543
needs first #559