[ctrace] Align trace-run metadata with specification

[thorstendb-ARM]

Fixes

• Aligns ctrace with the current experimental CMSIS-Toolbox trace-run specification.
• https://open-cmsis-pack.github.io/cmsis-toolbox/Experimental-Features/#ctrace-utility

Changes

• Read DWT metadata from the current address, size, and data-type fields.
• Support the specified unsigned, signed, and float data types.
• Use referenced ctrace-setup.data.size when reference-level size is absent.
• Distinguish DWT data#<index> references from instruction-control references so that only data references create decoded data sources.
• Ignore unknown and unconsumed YAML fields while retaining validation for fields used by ctrace.
• Update output planning, CTF metadata, fixtures, and tests to use the current field names.
• Remove compatibility handling for the previous field names because ctrace has not been released yet.

Checklist

• 🤖 This change is covered by unit tests (if applicable).
• 🤹 Manual testing has been performed (if necessary).
• 🛡️ Security impacts have been considered (if relevant).
• 📖 Documentation updates are complete (if required).
• 🧠 Third-party dependencies and TPIP updated (if required).

[github-actions]

Test Results

  4 files    4 suites   1s ⏱️
183 tests 183 ✅ 0 💤 0 ❌
366 runs  359 ✅ 7 💤 0 ❌

Results for commit 55ba90e.

♻️ This comment has been updated with latest results.

[soumeh01]

svdconv-cov shows a -0.44% coverage change although this PR does not modify SVDConv.

The SVDConv workflow is path-filtered and is not run for these ctrace only changes. The svdconv-cov Codecov flag has carryforward: true, so this appears to be a carried-forward/stale coverage comparison rather than a coverage regression introduced by this PR.

carryforward: true is useful for our use case as the repository is large. SVDConv wasn't tested this time, so It will carry forward its previous coverage. Otherwise it will complain about the 0 coverage/missing coverage.

[codecov]

Codecov Report

✅ All modified and coverable lines are covered by tests.
✅ Project coverage is 72.18%. Comparing base (b67ee18) to head (55ba90e).

Additional details and impacted files

@@            Coverage Diff             @@
##             main    #2581      +/-   ##
==========================================
- Coverage   72.30%   72.18%   -0.12%     
==========================================
  Files         185      185              
  Lines       30285    30275      -10     
  Branches    17870    17860      -10     
==========================================
- Hits        21897    21854      -43     
- Misses       6079     6109      +30     
- Partials     2309     2312       +3     

Flag	Coverage Δ
ctrace-cov	99.80% <100.00%> (+<0.01%)	⬆️

Flags with carried forward coverage won't be shown. Click here to find out more.

Files with missing lines	Coverage Δ
tools/ctrace/src/output/OutputRequirements.cpp	98.13% <100.00%> (+0.07%)	⬆️
tools/ctrace/src/output/TraceOutputConfig.h	100.00% <ø> (ø)
tools/ctrace/src/output/ctf/CtfEncoder.cpp	100.00% <100.00%> (ø)
tools/ctrace/src/output/ctf/CtfMetadataWriter.cpp	100.00% <100.00%> (ø)
tools/ctrace/src/output/ctf/CtfSchema.h	100.00% <100.00%> (ø)
tools/ctrace/src/tracerun/CtraceRunMeta.cpp	99.40% <100.00%> (+0.01%)	⬆️
tools/ctrace/src/tracerun/TraceRunConfig.h	100.00% <100.00%> (ø)
...ls/ctrace/src/tracerun/YmlTraceRunConfigReader.cpp	100.00% <100.00%> (ø)

... and 11 files with indirect coverage changes

🚀 New features to boost your workflow:

• ❄️ Test Analytics: Detect flaky tests, report on failures, and find test suite problems.

[jreineckearm]

carryforward: true is useful for our use case as the repository is large. SVDConv wasn't tested this time, so It will carry forward its previous coverage. Otherwise it will complain about the 0 coverage/missing coverage.

@soumeh01 , does the failing coverage check gate this PR once a reviewer approved?

[soumeh01]

carryforward: true is useful for our use case as the repository is large. SVDConv wasn't tested this time, so It will carry forward its previous coverage. Otherwise it will complain about the 0 coverage/missing coverage.

@soumeh01 , does the failing coverage check gate this PR once a reviewer approved?

Seems like it doesn't I just approved and it allows me to merge it.

[jreineckearm]

Just one question, will give it a try next

[jreineckearm]

How would a full message with this look like? Does it make clear that this is only CTF generation?

[jreineckearm]

Tested, still works as expected with the new nodes written by pyTS.
Good to get merged (I can't, I don't have the rights).

[soumeh01]

@thorstendb-ARM All comments must be resolved to merge this.