xtask: Add SemVer checks for esp-rom-sys

[JurajSadel]

This might be a bit of a hacky solution, but I tried to convince cargo-semver-checks that esp-rom-sys is not intended to ever reach 1.0, and I failed.

To test this, I changned a pub fn name in esp-rom-sys/src/rom/crc.rs:

-pub fn crc8_be(crc: u8, buf: &[u8]) -> u8 {
+pub fn crc8_be_change(crc: u8, buf: &[u8]) -> u8 {

Ran cargo xrelease plan esp-rom-sys --allow-non-main:

[2025-12-01T14:51:54Z INFO  xtask::commands::release::semver_check::checker] Downloading API baselines for esp-rom-sys
[2025-12-01T14:51:54Z INFO  xtask::commands::release::semver_check::checker] Attempting to download from GitHub Actions artifact: api-baselines-esp-rom-sys
[2025-12-01T14:51:54Z INFO  xtask::commands::release::semver_check::checker] Attempting to download artifact: api-baselines-esp-rom-sys from esp-rs/esp-hal
[2025-12-01T14:51:56Z INFO  xtask::commands::release::semver_check::checker] Successfully downloaded baselines from artifact api-baselines-esp-rom-sys
[2025-12-01T14:51:56Z INFO  xtask::commands::release::semver_check::checker] Found 7 baseline files for esp-rom-sys
    Checking <unknown> v0.1.3 -> v0.1.3 (no change; assume minor)
     Checked [   0.024s] 140 checks: 139 pass, 1 fail, 0 warn, 38 skip

--- failure function_missing: pub fn removed or renamed ---

Description:
A publicly-visible function cannot be imported by its prior path. A `pub use` may have been removed, or the function itself may have been renamed or removed entirely.
        ref: https://doc.rust-lang.org/cargo/reference/semver.html#item-remove
       impl: https://github.com/obi1kenobi/cargo-semver-checks/tree/v0.43.0/src/lints/function_missing.ron

Failed in:
  function esp_rom_sys::rom::crc::crc8_be, previously in file src/rom/crc.rs:122

     Summary semver requires new major version: 1 major and 0 minor checks failed

Summary semver requires new major version: 1 major and 0 minor checks failed

Is the reason for the "hacky" solution.

The final .jsonc:

{
  "base": "esp-rom-sys-semver",
  "packages": [
    {
      "package": "esp-metadata-generated",
      "semver_checked": false,
      "current_version": "0.3.0",
      "new_version": "0.4.0",
      "tag_name": "esp-metadata-generated-v0.4.0",
      "bump": "Minor"
    },
    {
      "package": "esp-rom-sys",
      "semver_checked": true,
      "current_version": "0.1.3",
      "new_version": "0.2.0",
      "tag_name": "esp-rom-sys-v0.2.0",
      "bump": "Minor"
    }
  ]
}

closes #4489

[MabezDev]

FYI, there is cargo xcheck semver-check check which will download the baselines and test against the current local code. Would be good to test that this works with more than just esp-hal.

[bugadani]

I don't mind doing this, but it's worth mentioning that what the release tool considers Major/Minor/Patch don't actually match semver's idea of "0.x -> 0.x+1 is a major bump".

[JurajSadel]

FYI, there is cargo xcheck semver-check check which will download the baselines and test against the current local code. Would be good to test that this works with more than just esp-hal.

I tested it (with the same change in esp-rom-sys as in the description) and the result is the same for esp-rom-sys. How esp-hal:

Finished `dev` profile [unoptimized + debuginfo] target(s) in 1.01s
   Generated /Users/jurajsadel/esp-rs/esp-hal/target/xtensa-esp32-none-elf/doc/esp_hal.json
    Checking <unknown> v1.0.0-rc.0 -> v1.0.0 (major change)
     Checked [   0.000s] 0 checks: 0 pass, 178 skip
     Summary no semver update required
    Finished [   0.204s] <unknown>

So, we need to re-generate the baselines for esp-hal and I changed impl<'d> Uart<'d, Blocking>

-    pub fn new(uart: impl Instance + 'd, config: Config) -> Result<Self, ConfigError> {
+    pub fn new1(uart: impl Instance + 'd, config: Config) -> Result<Self, ConfigError> {

and ran cargo xcheck semver-check check:

Finished `dev` profile [unoptimized + debuginfo] target(s) in 1.01s
   Generated /Users/jurajsadel/esp-rs/esp-hal/target/xtensa-esp32-none-elf/doc/esp_hal.json
    Checking <unknown> v1.0.0 -> v1.0.0 (no change; assume patch)
     Checked [   0.081s] 165 checks: 164 pass, 1 fail, 0 warn, 13 skip

--- failure inherent_method_missing: pub method removed or renamed ---

Finished `dev` profile [unoptimized + debuginfo] target(s) in 0.15s
   Generated /Users/jurajsadel/esp-rs/esp-hal/target/xtensa-esp32s3-none-elf/doc/esp_rom_sys.json
    Checking <unknown> v0.1.3 -> v0.1.3 (no change; assume minor)
     Checked [   0.023s] 140 checks: 139 pass, 1 fail, 0 warn, 38 skip

--- failure function_missing: pub fn removed or renamed ---

So, it should be working correctly (with re-generated baseline for esp-hal).

[JurajSadel]

Is anything else needed here, please?

[bjoernQ]

not necessarily something which needs to be done in this PR but we could have a forever_unstable() method on Package - we now have this piece of code duplicated

[MabezDev]

imo this should be done here, as its the first copy of the original. Let's refactor this now.

[MabezDev]

FYI, there is cargo xcheck semver-check check which will download the baselines and test against the current local code. Would be good to test that this works with more than just esp-hal.

I tested it (with the same change in esp-rom-sys as in the description) and the result is the same for esp-rom-sys. How esp-hal:

Finished `dev` profile [unoptimized + debuginfo] target(s) in 1.01s
   Generated /Users/jurajsadel/esp-rs/esp-hal/target/xtensa-esp32-none-elf/doc/esp_hal.json
    Checking <unknown> v1.0.0-rc.0 -> v1.0.0 (major change)
     Checked [   0.000s] 0 checks: 0 pass, 178 skip
     Summary no semver update required
    Finished [   0.204s] <unknown>

So, we need to re-generate the baselines for esp-hal and I changed impl<'d> Uart<'d, Blocking>

-    pub fn new(uart: impl Instance + 'd, config: Config) -> Result<Self, ConfigError> {
+    pub fn new1(uart: impl Instance + 'd, config: Config) -> Result<Self, ConfigError> {

and ran cargo xcheck semver-check check:

Finished `dev` profile [unoptimized + debuginfo] target(s) in 1.01s
   Generated /Users/jurajsadel/esp-rs/esp-hal/target/xtensa-esp32-none-elf/doc/esp_hal.json
    Checking <unknown> v1.0.0 -> v1.0.0 (no change; assume patch)
     Checked [   0.081s] 165 checks: 164 pass, 1 fail, 0 warn, 13 skip

--- failure inherent_method_missing: pub method removed or renamed ---

Finished `dev` profile [unoptimized + debuginfo] target(s) in 0.15s
   Generated /Users/jurajsadel/esp-rs/esp-hal/target/xtensa-esp32s3-none-elf/doc/esp_rom_sys.json
    Checking <unknown> v0.1.3 -> v0.1.3 (no change; assume minor)
     Checked [   0.023s] 140 checks: 139 pass, 1 fail, 0 warn, 38 skip

--- failure function_missing: pub fn removed or renamed ---

So, it should be working correctly (with re-generated baseline for esp-hal).

Can you add a test for this logic within the xtask? This kind of information is forgotten quickly, best to have the test there to enforce that how it behaves now is correct.

[MabezDev]

I'd like to see a test for the amount bump on packages that are stable and those that are not. Please also address @bjoernQ's comment here.