Skip to content

feat(tests): expand GPIO test scenarios #11475

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

Draft
wants to merge 1 commit into
base: master
Choose a base branch
from

Conversation

JakubAndrysek
Copy link

feat(tests): Enhance GPIO validation tests for ESP32

Description of Change

Updated GPIO validation tests to provide comprehensive testing of ESP32 GPIO interrupt functionality and basic digital I/O operations.

Tests scenarios

I have tested my Pull Request on Arduino-esp32 core v3.2.0 with Wokwi ont all available ESP32 mentioned in the test cases.
Report:

esp32:   SUCCESS
esp32c3: SUCCESS
esp32c6: SUCCESS
esp32h2: SUCCESS
esp32p4: TEST_FAILED
esp32s2: SUCCESS
esp32s3: SUCCESS

Code does not work on esp32-P4 due the Wokwi issue which is reported and will be ideally fixed soon.

@CLAassistant
Copy link

CLAassistant commented Jun 16, 2025

CLA assistant check
All committers have signed the CLA.

Copy link
Contributor

Messages
📖 🎉 Good Job! All checks are passing!

👋 Hello JakubAndrysek, we appreciate your contribution to this project!


📘 Please review the project's Contributions Guide for key guidelines on code, documentation, testing, and more.

🖊️ Please also make sure you have read and signed the Contributor License Agreement for this project.

Click to see more instructions ...


This automated output is generated by the PR linter DangerJS, which checks if your Pull Request meets the project's requirements and helps you fix potential issues.

DangerJS is triggered with each push event to a Pull Request and modify the contents of this comment.

Please consider the following:
- Danger mainly focuses on the PR structure and formatting and can't understand the meaning behind your code or changes.
- Danger is not a substitute for human code reviews; it's still important to request a code review from your colleagues.
- To manually retry these Danger checks, please navigate to the Actions tab and re-run last Danger workflow.

Review and merge process you can expect ...


We do welcome contributions in the form of bug reports, feature requests and pull requests.

1. An internal issue has been created for the PR, we assign it to the relevant engineer.
2. They review the PR and either approve it or ask you for changes or clarifications.
3. Once the GitHub PR is approved we do the final review, collect approvals from core owners and make sure all the automated tests are passing.
- At this point we may do some adjustments to the proposed change, or extend it by adding tests or documentation.
4. If the change is approved and passes the tests it is merged into the default branch.

Generated by 🚫 dangerJS against 7258ffc

Copy link
Contributor

Test Results

 76 files   76 suites   14m 2s ⏱️
 38 tests  37 ✅ 0 💤 1 ❌
241 runs  234 ✅ 0 💤 7 ❌

For more details on these failures, see this check.

Results for commit 7258ffc.

@me-no-dev
Copy link
Member

@JakubAndrysek tests seem to be failing

@JakubAndrysek JakubAndrysek marked this pull request as draft June 16, 2025 10:48
@JakubAndrysek
Copy link
Author

@JakubAndrysek tests seem to be failing

Hi, I am now trying to solve it with @urish

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.

3 participants