Fix mbed-cli issue #468. Add LPCTargetCode.lpc_patch to POST_BINARY_WHITELIST

[wdwalker]

Notes:

• Pull requests will not be accepted until the submitter has agreed to the contributer agreement.
• This is just a template, so feel free to use/remove the unnecessary things

Description

Although the post_binary_hooks are not used by the exporters at this time, the exporters do set up a POST_BINARY_WHITELIST and reject anything with a post_binary_hook not in the whitelist. This prevents LPCTargets from working with exporters. This patch adds the LPCTarget to the whitelist of all exporters.

Status

READY
Resolves ARMmbed/mbed-cli#468

Todos

• Tests - /morph export-build

[theotherjimmy]

I edited the description to remove all the excess.

[theotherjimmy]

/morph export-build

[theotherjimmy]

The process we go through for merging PRs is something like:

1. PR submitted
2. PR reviewed and testing plan decided
3. Wait for tests to finish
4. mark Ready For Merge and notify gatekeepers.

[mbed-bot]

Result: SUCCESS

Your command has finished executing! Here's what you wrote!

/morph export-build

Output

mbed Build Number: 150

All exports and builds passed!

[0xc0170]

@wdwalker https://developer.mbed.org/contributor_agreement/ - have you signed CLA?

[wdwalker]

I believe so. When I go to https://developer.mbed.org/contributor_agreement/, it says "You accepted the Contributor Agreement on Wed 29 Mar 2017" at the bottom. Many thanks.

[0xc0170]

@wdwalker Whats your username? https://developer.mbed.org/users/wdwalker/ gives an error?

[wdwalker]

D'Oh - it's wwalker in mbed, but wdwalker in GitHub.

[theotherjimmy]

It looks like you pushed the commit that fixes the other issue onto this branch. Could you create a feature branch for that commit and submit it as a separate PR? This will reduce the time it takes to get these PRs merged, and keep the discussions in each PR focused.

[wdwalker]

Yeah - just saw that. Didn't know that was going to happen. Sorry about that. Thought I could use my fork over and over for different PRs. (I see now that I should create a feature branch on my fork for each different PR, right?)

So, what state did I leave the fork in? Is the PR for this specific issue (#468) now screwed up?

[theotherjimmy]

So, what state did I leave the fork in? Is the PR for this specific issue (#468) now screwed up?

It's fixable.

You could:

• create a feature branch from this branch: git checkout -b lpc-pindefs
• remove the unrelated commits from that feature branch: git rebase -i origin/master
  • delete the lines related to commits that you don't want included
• checkout the original branch git checkout master
• remove the unrelated commits from the original feature branch using the same method.

Yeah - just saw that. Didn't know that was going to happen. Sorry about that. Thought I could use my fork over and over for different PRs.

You can, with different branches.

[theotherjimmy]

Nice side effect of this little mistake: you learn more git-foo.

[wdwalker]

OK - think I fixed it. Sorry for the confusion. At least now I know I can use feature branches on my fork. I like feature branches. (The past few years have been spent in an Atlassian environment and the workflow was slightly different.)

[theotherjimmy]

It looks like you got it! Thanks!