mirror of
https://github.com/openglow-org/forgefirm.git
synced 2026-09-27 08:41:13 -07:00
ScottW514
b51e695fb1
A component pin bump counted as a platform change: the layer content hash in the platform identity covered the recipe carrying the SRCREV, the platform is folded into every acceptance fingerprint, so every image that carried any component update invalidated the whole catalog (dev image 20260816191951: every test domain-changed after a one-line forgectrl bump; the two manifests differ only in platform.layers.meta-forgefirm). The component entry already identifies the pinned source file by file; the pin double-counted it. Component pins now live in <recipe>-pin.inc (SRCREV and the PV that moves with it, nothing else) - forgectrl, grblhal-glowforge and forgefirm-app here, the BSP components in meta-openglow - and forgefirm-image-manifest.bbclass leaves *-pin.inc out of the layer content (FORGEFIRM_MANIFEST_PIN_SUFFIX). Recipe bodies, patches, config fragments, init scripts and third-party pins with no manifest entry stay layer content; a pin written into a recipe body still hashes (the safe direction). manifest-from-tree.py mirrors the rule and reads pins through the recipe's requires; test_tree_manifest.py proves both (pin bump: hash unchanged; recipe body or inline pin: changed). Bitbake resolves the same SRCREV/PV for every pinned recipe. Docs: ACCEPTANCE.md (what layer content is), kas/README.md (the pin files in the push order), BRINGUP.md (the finding and the bench consequence: the first image built with the pin files is itself a platform change, so its campaign is a full one; pin bumps inherit after it). No catalog consequence: nothing in the image's behavior changes; the change is to the acceptance identity computation, proven by the unit tests and the CI lint on the tree manifest.