Skip to content

test(embed): unignore verified esp32c3-basic cases#1741

Draft
luoliwoshang wants to merge 1 commit intogoplus:mainfrom
luoliwoshang:feat/esp32c3-unignore-verified-cases
Draft

test(embed): unignore verified esp32c3-basic cases#1741
luoliwoshang wants to merge 1 commit intogoplus:mainfrom
luoliwoshang:feat/esp32c3-unignore-verified-cases

Conversation

@luoliwoshang
Copy link
Copy Markdown
Member

Summary

  • remove 18 stale ignore entries under esp32c3-basic in cl/compile_test.go
  • keep 21 ignore entries that still fail by run error/output mismatch/timeout
  • keep esp32 target ignore list unchanged

Validation

  • LLGO_EMBED_TESTS=1 go test ./cl -run 'TestRunEmbedEmulator/esp32c3-basic' -count=1 -timeout 30m -v
  • result: PASS (ok github.com/goplus/llgo/cl 524.038s)

@gemini-code-assist
Copy link
Copy Markdown

Summary of Changes

Hello, I'm Gemini Code Assist1! I'm currently reviewing this pull request and will post my feedback shortly. In the meantime, here's a summary to help you and other reviewers quickly get up to speed!

This pull request refines the test suite for embedded systems by updating the ignore list for the esp32c3-basic target. By removing test cases that are now passing, it improves the accuracy of the test configuration and ensures that the test suite reflects the current state of the system's capabilities. This cleanup helps maintain a more reliable and efficient testing process.

Highlights

  • Test Case Unignoring: Removed 18 previously ignored test cases for the esp32c3-basic target in cl/compile_test.go, indicating that these tests now pass successfully.
  • Ignored Test Cases Maintained: Retained 21 ignore entries for esp32c3-basic that still exhibit failures due to run errors, output mismatches, or timeouts.
  • Target Scope: Confirmed that the ignore list for the esp32 target remains unchanged in this update.
  • Validation: The changes were validated by running LLGO_EMBED_TESTS=1 go test ./cl -run 'TestRunEmbedEmulator/esp32c3-basic' which resulted in a successful pass.

🧠 New Feature in Public Preview: You can now enable Memory to help Gemini Code Assist learn from your team's feedback. This makes future code reviews more consistent and personalized to your project's style. Click here to enable Memory in your admin console.

Using Gemini Code Assist

The full guide for Gemini Code Assist can be found on our documentation page, here are some quick tips.

Invoking Gemini

You can request assistance from Gemini at any point by creating a comment using either /gemini <command> or @gemini-code-assist <command>. Below is a summary of the supported commands on the current page.

Feature Command Description
Code Review /gemini review Performs a code review for the current pull request in its current state.
Pull Request Summary /gemini summary Provides a summary of the current pull request in its current state.
Comment @gemini-code-assist Responds in comments when explicitly tagged, both in pull request comments and review comments.
Help /gemini help Displays a list of available commands.

Customization

To customize Gemini Code Assist for GitHub experience, repository maintainers can create a configuration file and/or provide a custom code review style guide (such as PEP-8 for Python) by creating and adding files to a .gemini/ folder in the base of the repository. Detailed instructions can be found here.

Limitations & Feedback

Gemini Code Assist may make mistakes. Please leave feedback on any instances where its feedback is incorrect or counter productive. You can react with 👍 and 👎 on @gemini-code-assist comments. If you're interested in giving your feedback about your experience with Gemini Code Assist for GitHub and other Google products, sign up here.

Footnotes

  1. Review the Privacy Notices, Generative AI Prohibited Use Policy, Terms of Service, and learn how to configure Gemini Code Assist in GitHub here. Gemini can make mistakes, so double check it and use code with caution.

Copy link
Copy Markdown

@gemini-code-assist gemini-code-assist bot left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Code Review

This pull request removes 18 previously ignored test cases for the esp32c3-basic target, which now pass. My review includes a minor suggestion to clean up an empty entry in the configuration map for improved clarity.

"./_testrt/tpfunc", // unexpected output: type size mismatch (got 8 4 4, expected 16 8 8)
"./_testrt/typalias", // fast fail: build constraints exclude all Go files
},
"./_testdata": {},
Copy link
Copy Markdown

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

medium

Since the list of ignored tests for ./_testdata is now empty, this map entry can be removed for better readability. The test runner correctly handles a missing key by treating it as an empty list of ignored tests.

@xgopilot
Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

xgopilot bot commented Mar 23, 2026

Clean, well-executed maintenance PR. The counts in the description are accurate (18 removed, 21 remaining), entries stay alphabetically sorted, and inline comments documenting failure reasons are consistent and descriptive. No security or performance concerns — the validated 524s runtime is well within the 30m timeout. One minor style nit below.

"./_testrt/tpfunc", // unexpected output: type size mismatch (got 8 4 4, expected 16 8 8)
"./_testrt/typalias", // fast fail: build constraints exclude all Go files
},
"./_testdata": {},
Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Nit: Now that all _testdata tests pass, you could remove this key from the map entirely instead of keeping an empty slice. That would make it immediately obvious there are no ignores for this directory, rather than looking like a placeholder. Totally optional though — the current form is valid Go.

@codecov
Copy link
Copy Markdown

codecov bot commented Mar 23, 2026

Codecov Report

✅ All modified and coverable lines are covered by tests.
✅ Project coverage is 93.15%. Comparing base (4bcc4af) to head (e5dc2c4).

Additional details and impacted files
@@           Coverage Diff           @@
##             main    #1741   +/-   ##
=======================================
  Coverage   93.15%   93.15%           
=======================================
  Files          48       48           
  Lines       13352    13352           
=======================================
  Hits        12438    12438           
  Misses        727      727           
  Partials      187      187           

☔ View full report in Codecov by Sentry.
📢 Have feedback on the report? Share it here.

🚀 New features to boost your workflow:
  • ❄️ Test Analytics: Detect flaky tests, report on failures, and find test suite problems.
  • 📦 JS Bundle Analysis: Save yourself from yourself by tracking and limiting bundle sizes in JS merges.

@luoliwoshang luoliwoshang marked this pull request as draft March 23, 2026 10:30
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.

1 participant