ARM test && CASTXML 0.6.11

[johnnynunez]

This pull request includes updates to the GitHub Actions workflow configuration to support new operating system versions and architectures, as well as updates to the setup steps for various tools.

Workflow Configuration Updates:

• .github/workflows/tests.yml: Updated the matrix to include arch and added support for ubuntu-24.04 and ubuntu-24.04-arm with various Python versions and C++ standards. Also, added support for macos-15 with arm64 architecture.

Tool Setup Updates:

• .github/workflows/tests.yml: Updated the CastXML setup steps to support the new OS versions and architectures, including specific setup commands for ubuntu-24.04, ubuntu-22.04, and macos-15 for both x86_64 and arm64 architectures.

[johnnynunez]

Finally working @iMichka @thewtex

[johnnynunez]

@iMichka @thewtex well! it has the bug that I found in OMPL ompl/ompl#1234 #197 It occurs with > 20.04 linux versions not was only in aarch64

[johnnynunez]

more bugs appear with ubuntu 24.04 @thewtex @iMichka

[johnnynunez]

I've seen that castxml

if(LLVM_VERSION_MAJOR GREATER 15)
  set(CMAKE_CXX_STANDARD 17)
elseif(LLVM_VERSION_MAJOR GREATER 9)
  set(CMAKE_CXX_STANDARD 14)
else()
  set(CMAKE_CXX_STANDARD 11)
  ```

[johnnynunez]

upgrade to "-std=c++17" nothing change

[johnnynunez]

@thewtex @iMichka I tried everything... clang, gcc etc the code seems bugged for ubuntu > 20.04

[iMichka]

@johnnynunez we will have to fix these failing tests. This might take days ... but it looks like some of these are similar so fixing one will fix multiple tests at once.

Can you please slow down on opening pull requests? It's hard to follow and I would have time to review them correctly. @thewtex please don't merge things unless I can have a quick approval on these changes; they are way too massive and I need time to check if everything goes well.

@johnnynunez your work is great and I thank you for all the effort you are putting into this :) But you will have to be patient. The pull requests you make are way to big given the many failures we are seeing here.

• At a first glance we lost -std=c++98 testing in this PR
• Adding ARM runners right now seems a little bit ambitious

I propose we take this step by step:

• Transition x86 to ubuntu 22.04
• Then x86 to 24.04, and keep one test on 22.04
• Add tests for c++14, c++17, c++21 ?
• Update castxml at one point
• Add ARM runners at the end (and not need to add so many, just the latests 24.04 with a standard test is probably enough

At any point in-between these 5 steps we will have to fix tests.

[johnnynunez]

@johnnynunez we will have to fix these failing tests. This might take days ... but it looks like some of these are similar so fixing one will fix multiple tests at once.

Can you please slow down on opening pull requests? It's hard to follow and I would have time to review them correctly. @thewtex please don't merge things unless I can have a quick approval on these changes; they are way too massive and I need time to check if everything goes well.

@johnnynunez your work is great and I thank you for all the effort you are putting into this :) But you will have to be patient. The pull requests you make are way to big given the many failures we are seeing here.

• At a first glance we lost -std=c++98 testing in this PR
• Adding ARM runners right now seems a little bit ambitious

I propose we take this step by step:

• Transition x86 to ubuntu 22.04
• Then x86 to 24.04, and keep one test on 22.04
• Add tests for c++14, c++17, c++21 ?
• Update castxml at one point
• Add ARM runners at the end (and not need to add so many, just the latests 24.04 with a standard test is probably enough

At any point in-between these 5 steps we will have to fix tests.

thanks! for understanding, is the bug from ompl that occurs some time ago also. So thank you

FYI: 20.04 will not run in march. actions/runner-images#11101

[iMichka]

I'll have a look I will start working on it asap over the next days: #239

[iMichka]

FYI: 20.04 will not run in march. actions/runner-images#11101

Thanks you are right. I'll remove it.

[iMichka]

@johnnynunez I have also split out the GitHub Actions update: #240