[nrfconnect] Enable commissionable node advertising

[Damian-Nordic]

Problem

Thread platforms such as nRF Connect SDK don't support commissionable node advertising.

Change overview

1. Clean up DNS-SD default configuration as different settings were defined in two different places.
2. Clean up conditions for enabling commissionable node advertising.
3. Enable commissionable node advertising for nRF Connect platform.

Testing

Tested using nRF Connect Lock example:

1. Checked that after pressing Button 3 the device advertises both operational and commissionable node services.
2. Likewise, checked that after commissioning with Python CHIP Controller the device advertises both operational and commissionable node services.
3. Verified that commissionable node services are searchable by subtypes, i.e. commands like avahi-browse -rt _S0._sub._matterc._udp return correct data.

[woody-apple]

It looks like this changes logic that is shared amongst multiple platforms. What unit tests cover this shared code? It seems like we should be adding new unit tests here...

[Damian-Nordic]

It looks like this changes logic that is shared amongst multiple platforms. What unit tests cover this shared code? It seems like we should be adding new unit tests here...

Which logic do you mean? We probably can't unit-test the OpenThread changes as they are only used by platforms that are run on hardware.

[Damian-Nordic]

It looks like this changes logic that is shared amongst multiple platforms. What unit tests cover this shared code? It seems like we should be adding new unit tests here...

I reduced changes in the common code to one condition change in server/Mdns.cpp which seems to make sense anyway - we shouldn't advertise operational nodes with any default node IDs. Apparently, some changes to OTBR must be made to be able to test mDNS in the cirque framework - before that I'm not sure how we can test that part automatically. But I'm open to any suggestions.

[kkasperczyk-no]

@bzbarsky-apple @woody-apple could you re-review and see if there are any other changes to request? I think we are still missing here approval from your side.

[Damian-Nordic]

@woody-apple PTAL?

[github-actions]

Size increase report for "esp32-example-build" from 762a204

File	Section	File	VM
chip-all-clusters-app.elf	.flash.text	-24	-24
chip-all-clusters-app.elf	.flash.rodata	-56	-56
chip-lock-app.elf	.flash.text	52	52
chip-lock-app.elf	.flash.rodata	-48	-48
chip-temperature-measurement-app.elf	.flash.text	-28	-28
chip-temperature-measurement-app.elf	.flash.rodata	-56	-56

Full report output

BLOAT REPORT

Files found only in the build output:
    report.csv

Comparing ./master_artifact/chip-all-clusters-app.elf and ./pull_artifact/chip-all-clusters-app.elf:

sections,vmsize,filesize
.debug_loc,0,183
[Unmapped],0,80
.debug_line,0,59
.strtab,0,52
.debug_ranges,0,48
.debug_info,0,43
.debug_frame,0,36
.symtab,0,16
.debug_aranges,0,8
.debug_abbrev,0,6
.riscv.attributes,0,1
.flash.text,-24,-24
.flash.rodata,-56,-56

Comparing ./master_artifact/chip-ipv6only-app.elf and ./pull_artifact/chip-ipv6only-app.elf:

sections,vmsize,filesize

Comparing ./master_artifact/chip-shell.elf and ./pull_artifact/chip-shell.elf:

sections,vmsize,filesize

Comparing ./master_artifact/chip-pigweed-app.elf and ./pull_artifact/chip-pigweed-app.elf:

sections,vmsize,filesize

Comparing ./master_artifact/chip-lock-app.elf and ./pull_artifact/chip-lock-app.elf:

sections,vmsize,filesize
.debug_info,0,123
.debug_line,0,66
.debug_ranges,0,64
.flash.text,52,52
.strtab,0,52
.debug_loc,0,36
.debug_frame,0,24
.symtab,0,16
.debug_abbrev,0,9
.debug_aranges,0,8
.debug_str,0,-2
[Unmapped],0,-4
.flash.rodata,-48,-48

Comparing ./master_artifact/chip-temperature-measurement-app.elf and ./pull_artifact/chip-temperature-measurement-app.elf:

sections,vmsize,filesize
.debug_info,0,123
[Unmapped],0,84
.debug_line,0,60
.debug_ranges,0,56
.strtab,0,52
.debug_loc,0,28
.debug_frame,0,24
.debug_abbrev,0,17
.symtab,0,16
.debug_aranges,0,8
.flash.text,-28,-28
.flash.rodata,-56,-56

Comparing ./master_artifact/chip-persistent-storage.elf and ./pull_artifact/chip-persistent-storage.elf:

sections,vmsize,filesize

[github-actions]

Size increase report for "gn_qpg-example-build" from 762a204

File	Section	File	VM
chip-qpg6100-lighting-example.out	.text	-84	-84

Full report output

BLOAT REPORT

Files found only in the build output:
    report.csv

Comparing ./master_artifact/chip-qpg6100-lighting-example.out and ./pull_artifact/chip-qpg6100-lighting-example.out:

sections,vmsize,filesize
.debug_loc,0,549
.debug_info,0,183
[Unmapped],0,84
.debug_line,0,82
.debug_ranges,0,56
.debug_frame,0,52
.symtab,0,48
.debug_abbrev,0,46
.debug_aranges,0,16
.strtab,0,-68
.text,-84,-84

Comparing ./master_artifact/chip-qpg6100-lighting-example.out.map and ./pull_artifact/chip-qpg6100-lighting-example.out.map:

BLOAT EXECUTION FAILED WITH CODE 1:
bloaty: unknown file type for file './pull_artifact/chip-qpg6100-lighting-example.out.map'

[github-actions]

Size increase report for "nrfconnect-example-build" from 762a204

File	Section	File	VM
chip-lock.elf	bss	0	1268
chip-lock.elf	text	1196	1196
chip-lock.elf	rodata	352	352
chip-lock.elf	device_handles	4	4
chip-lock.elf	[LOAD #3 [RW]]	0	-20
chip-shell.elf	bss	0	1248
chip-shell.elf	text	68	68
chip-shell.elf	device_handles	-4	-4

Full report output

BLOAT REPORT

Files found only in the build output:
    report.csv

Comparing ./master_artifact/chip-lock.elf and ./pull_artifact/chip-lock.elf:

sections,vmsize,filesize
.debug_info,0,31670
.debug_loc,0,4058
.debug_line,0,3917
.debug_abbrev,0,3245
.debug_str,0,1662
.strtab,0,1371
bss,1268,0
text,1196,1196
.debug_ranges,0,960
.symtab,0,736
rodata,352,352
.debug_frame,0,192
.debug_aranges,0,64
device_handles,4,4
.shstrtab,0,-3
[LOAD #3 [RW]],-20,0

Comparing ./master_artifact/chip-shell.elf and ./pull_artifact/chip-shell.elf:

sections,vmsize,filesize
bss,1248,0
.debug_loc,0,414
.debug_info,0,256
.debug_line,0,148
text,68,68
.debug_ranges,0,40
.debug_abbrev,0,24
.debug_frame,0,4
.debug_str,0,2
device_handles,-4,-4

[bzbarsky-apple]

What unit tests cover this shared code?

Right now nothing. The thing to unit-test here would be what sorts of advertisements we actually produce in various situations, and we don't have very good infrastructure for this right now....

I filed #8769 for tracking the tests getting added, but don't think we should block the PR on them.

Issues generally addressed, request for tests tracked in #8769