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

Publish HTML docs for 1.1 RTL in addition to main #676

Open
wants to merge 1 commit into
base: main
Choose a base branch
from

Conversation

jhand2
Copy link

@jhand2 jhand2 commented Dec 23, 2024

Currently the docs workflow only publishes documentation for registers at main. To make it easier to look up registers for 1.x, also publish the registers from the patch_v1.1 branch.

This was tested on my fork of this repo. See sample output:

@jhand2 jhand2 requested a review from Nitsirks December 23, 2024 20:26
@jhand2
Copy link
Author

jhand2 commented Dec 23, 2024

Not sure what I'm supposed to do to bypass the test timestamp, since this is a documentation-only change:

Latest non-doc hash is d5cfea9be870d8539efef4462eef4b564d01553e
Error, submitted timestamp [1734735334] is outdated: it precedes the latest non-documentation commit to branch by more than an hour [1734981795]
Please rerun any internal/company proprietary testcases, which should invoke .github/scripts/stamp_repo.sh to attest to successful completion
DO NOT manually run stamp_repo.sh on your branch to bypass this step - the output timestamp/hash is used to verify internal testcase sign-off is successful

@calebofearth
Copy link
Collaborator

calebofearth commented Dec 23, 2024

Thanks for doing this Jordan, nice improvement!
The hash check is firing because this PR modifies a yml file. The "doc-only" exception currently only applies to .md/.png files.
We could probably stand to except the workflow files as well. Adding ! -path "*.github/workflows/* here: https://github.com/jhand2/caliptra-rtl/blob/docs_1_1/.github/workflows/pre-run-check.yml#L102 should do the trick.
A couple additional requests as part of this PR:

@calebofearth
Copy link
Collaborator

Also, a topic for discussion in the WG: Do we go back and retroactively update the README from patch_v1.1 to point to these new pages?
We could just directly update the release collateral https://github.com/chipsalliance/caliptra-rtl/releases/tag/v1.1

@calebofearth
Copy link
Collaborator

@jhand2 I've commited some updates to the pre-run-check workflow (added the exclusions I proposed above).
Can you rebase this PR to main?
(Also note that I rolled the version forward for the action deploy-pages)

@jhand2
Copy link
Author

jhand2 commented Jan 22, 2025

@jhand2 I've commited some updates to the pre-run-check workflow (added the exclusions I proposed above). Can you rebase this PR to main? (Also note that I rolled the version forward for the action deploy-pages)

Thanks! Done.

Currently the docs workflow only publishes documentation for registers
at main. To make it easier to look up registers for 1.x, also publish
the registers from the patch_v1.1 branch.
path: /tmp/pages-docs/v1_1

- name: Generate GitHub Pages artifacts
uses: actions/upload-pages-artifact@v1
Copy link
Collaborator

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

I think this needs to be v3

@@ -52,3 +52,4 @@ For each release, the following steps are followed to ensure code functionality
- Add latest synthesis results to the [CaliptraIntegrationSpecification](./CaliptraIntegrationSpecification.md#netlist-synthesis-data)
- Update [Release_Notes](../Release_Notes.md)
- Tag the main branch on GitHub to generate an official release
- Generate version-specific registers documentation page in in The [Register Documentation Workflow](./.github/workflows/doc-gen.yml)
Copy link
Collaborator

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

nit: in in The -> in the

@calebofearth
Copy link
Collaborator

Couple minor comments.
Also, looks like my tweak to the hash check didn't work, I'm pushing in a fix here: #704. Once that's merged we can rebase this PR again and then the hash check is expected to pass.

@calebofearth
Copy link
Collaborator

calebofearth commented Jan 24, 2025

#704 is merged. Can you address the above comments and rebase this PR to main?

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.

2 participants