Updated 113 targets with missing detect_codes

[thegecko]

Signed-off-by: thegecko [email protected]

This PR includes formatting changes as the targets.json file was re-generated from a script.
The missing data was drawn from the mbed.com target database APIs.

Summary of changes

Updated targets.json file to include 113 detect_codes which were missing

Documentation

None

---

Pull request type

[x] Patch update (Bug fix / Target update / Docs update / Test update / Refactor)
[] Feature update (New feature / Functionality change / New API)
[] Major update (Breaking change E.g. Return code change / API behaviour change)

---

Test results

[x] No Tests required for this change (E.g docs only update)
[] Covered by existing mbed-os tests (Greentea or Unittest)
[] Tests / results supplied as part of this PR

---

[jeromecoutant]

But detect_code is not used....?

[thegecko]

But detect_code is not used....?

In which case I'm happy to change this PR to remove them all.

Thoughts welcome.

[ciarmcom]

@thegecko, thank you for your changes.
@ARMmbed/mbed-os-maintainers please review.

[0Grit]

@ARMmbed/mbed-os-tools

[bulislaw]

This PR does many things in one commit. The formatting across the file has changed and the detect codes were added. It's hard to review and it's confusing.
As for the detect codes I thought there's a copy of them in Mbed ls, is there a fallback to targets.json when mbed command is called from the mbed sources? @ARMmbed/mbed-os-tools

[thegecko]

The formatting across the file has changed and the detect codes were added

Would you like a PR which fixes the formatting first?
As a script generated the file, it's not possible to make the update without updating the formatting first.

As for the detect codes I thought there's a copy of them in Mbed ls

We need to reduce the amount of places this data is kept, if Mbed ls is where this should be, recommend detect_codes are removed and Mbed ls exposes away for this data to be read.

[0Grit]

Yes lets get to single sources of truth

[0xc0170]

Would you like a PR which fixes the formatting first?

Yes, please. The format fix would be good!

[0xc0170]

is there a fallback to targets.json when mbed command is called from the mbed sources? @ARMmbed/mbed-os-tools

I've got the same question - these 113 targets - where do they get the code from then? there's a note in the older docs I could find "detect code" can be specified but not mandatory.

@ARMmbed/mbed-os-tools Where this detect code should be defined?

[mark-edgeworth]

Agree that the formatting changes would be better in a separate commit which would allow the detect_code changes to be more easily seen. As for the addition of the codes; at the moment the system seems to support the codes being here and having them all filled in is unlikely to break existing code (and will help Rob). We're actively looking at the provision of target information and will certainly be deciding on a single source of truth for these values (and others that are duplicated across the various data sources). At this point the changes here may not be required.

We have a script here that we'll run to check whether these changes are consistent. Suggest holding off merge until we know the results (to save any typos that may have been introduced).

[thegecko]

PR for format changes has been opened here: #12199

I'll update this PR if/when that PR is merged

[thegecko]

PR updated after the format change, the additional detect_codes should be much clearer now.

We can either merge this or I can open a PR to drop detect_codes altogether.

Thoughts?

[0xc0170]

@ARMmbed/mbed-os-tools Please review

[mergify]

This PR cannot be merged due to conflicts. Please rebase to resolve them.

[adbridge]

@madchutney after today's discussion, does this count as a critical fix or a new feature ?

[madchutney]

@adbridge I think critical fix, also this could be used as the source of data for new tools so the sooner it is fixed the better. There is a report here which can be used to double the entries as there has long been a discrepancy between the various sources that perhaps @MarceloSalazar can help with.

https://mbed-target.s3.eu-west-2.amazonaws.com/validation/index.html

[adbridge]

@madchutney @mark-edgeworth could one of you please review this then ?

[0xc0170]

@madchutney @mark-edgeworth could one of you please review this then ?

Please review

[0xc0170]

Mergify thinks this does not have conflicts? I'll check

Meantime, please rebase, we can start CI asap

[thegecko]

I'll force-push an updated version to ensure conflicts are resolved

[thegecko]

I'll force-push an updated version to ensure conflicts are resolved

Done

Pull request has been modified.

[0xc0170]

CI started

[mbed-ci]

Test run: SUCCESS

Summary: 11 of 11 test jobs passed
Build number : 1
Build artifacts

[mergify]

This PR does not contain release version label after merging.

[0xc0170]

This PR does not contain release version label after merging.

Fixed