Added chipsets to supported platforms #10174

atsansone · 2024-02-20T22:46:36Z

Added hardware architectures to supported platforms.

Fixes #10136
Fixes #6713

flutter-website-bot · 2024-02-20T22:55:01Z

Visit the preview URL for this PR (updated for commit b34790e):

https://flutter-docs-prod--pr10174-fix-10136-5szlvlmk.web.app

sfshaza2

Assuming the chipset info is correct, lgtm

parlough

Thanks for working on this @atsansone! Cool idea!

A few accessibility and accuracy issues I noticed during an initial review:

Let me know if want to discuss any further. Thanks!

src/reference/supported-platforms.md

src/_data/platforms.yml

src/_data/chipsets.yml

parlough · 2024-02-20T23:17:38Z

src/_data/chipsets.yml

+  x64: '<span class="material-symbols" style="color: #158477;">verified</span>'
+  arm32: '<span class="material-symbols" style="color: #158477;">verified</span>'
+  arm64: '<span class="material-symbols" style="color: #158477;">verified</span> '
+  risc-v: '<span class="material-symbols" style="color: #13C2AD">gpp_maybe</span>'


I think this is unsupported. I don't think any work in Flutter has gone towards adding support for this target yet. At least not anything enabled by default in the beta channel.

parlough · 2024-02-20T23:20:09Z

src/_data/chipsets.yml

+  x86: '<span class="material-symbols" style="color: #158477;">verified</span>'
+  x64: '<span class="material-symbols" style="color: #158477;">verified</span>'
+  arm32: '<span class="material-symbols" style="color: #158477;">verified</span>'


Does Flutter actually provide the necessary artifacts for Linux x86 and arm32 support? I think a custom engine/embedder could add support, but as far as I can tell, Flutter doesn't support these two by default.

parlough · 2024-02-20T23:21:25Z

src/reference/supported-platforms.md

+{% assign na = '<span class="material-symbols" style="color:
+#DADCE0">do_not_disturb_on</span>' %}
+
+| Platform |   x86   |   x64   |  ARM32  |   ARM64   | RISC-V   |


RISC-V is very broad due to its various extensions. Consider explaining with a footnote or using the full specifier of the extensions that Dart targets: RISC-V (RV64GC)

parlough · 2024-02-20T23:23:04Z

src/reference/supported-platforms.md

+{% assign yes = '<span class="material-symbols" style="color: #158477;">verified</span>' %}
+{% assign no = '<span class="material-symbols" style="color: #D43324">dangerous</span>' %}
+{% assign beta = '<span class="material-symbols" style="color: #13C2AD">gpp_maybe</span>' %}
+{% assign na = '<span class="material-symbols" style="color:
+#DADCE0">do_not_disturb_on</span>' %}


I'm worried about the accessibility of these icons. For a screen reader, I believe they'll just show up as verified, dangerous, gpp_maybe, etc.

Consider exploring avenues to make them more accessible. Happy to discuss further!

I found a way to handle this. Take a look.

parlough · 2024-02-20T23:24:35Z

src/reference/supported-platforms.md

+{% assign na = '<span class="material-symbols" style="color:
+#DADCE0">do_not_disturb_on</span>' %}
+
+| Platform |   x86   |   x64   |  ARM32  |   ARM64   | RISC-V   |


To prevent confusion between x86 and x86-64 on the Dart site we've referred to x86 as IA32. I think that would be worthwhile here, or some parenthetical.

We did, but not anymore. This table came from the Dart site.

Is there any reason in particular you made the switch? Can we switch back? In the Dart SDK and the GCP storage archive, it is labeled as IA32, so I think it's best to be consistent across everywhere if possible.

sfshaza2 · 2024-02-20T23:40:39Z

Thanks so much for your thorough review, @parlough!

domesticmouse

LGTM once @parlough's changes are landed

loic-sharma · 2024-02-21T17:33:06Z

src/reference/supported-platforms.md

+{% assign na = '<span class="material-symbols" style="color:
+#DADCE0">do_not_disturb_on</span>' %}
+
+| Platform |   x86   |   x64   |  ARM32  |   ARM64   | RISC-V   |


FYI, we were told by Microsoft to use the "Windows Arm64" branding instead of "Windows ARM64". It looks like that's the branding used on arm.com as well (link). Should we rebrand these to Arm32 and Arm64?

Sounds good!

loic-sharma · 2024-02-21T17:48:37Z

src/reference/supported-platforms.md

+{% assign na = '<span class="material-symbols" style="color:
+#DADCE0">do_not_disturb_on</span>' %}
+
+| Platform |   x86   |   x64   |  ARM32  |   ARM64   | RISC-V   |


Should we upgrade Windows Arm64 to "Supported in all channels"? The 3.19 blog post declared "initial support" for Windows Arm64 on beta and master channels: https://medium.com/flutter/whats-new-in-flutter-3-19-58b1aae242d2

FYI we're in a weird messy state right now: you can create Windows Arm64 executables if you re-download the engine artifacts once (examples: flutter precache, flutter upgrade, etc..). Until you re-download artifacts, you'll create Windows x64 executables that run on Windows Arm64 using emulation.

Some context: On Windows, we don't support cross-compilation yet and the Flutter tool targets whatever architecture the tool was built for. If on a Windows Arm64 machine you use the Flutter tool for x64 machines, you'll produce an x64 app. Although we do have Windows Arm64 artifacts, we haven't created a Windows Arm64 Flutter SDK .zip yet. As a result, Windows Arm64 users start with x64 artifacts until they re-download their artifacts.

Sorry for the long-winded explanation 😅

Understood and fixed.

loic-sharma · 2024-02-21T23:14:43Z

src/reference/supported-platforms.md

+       role="img">do_not_disturb_on</span>
+{% endcapture %}
+
+| Platform |   x86   |   x64   |  ARM32  |   ARM64   | RV64GC   |


Suggested change

| Platform | x86 | x64 | ARM32 | ARM64 | RV64GC |

| Platform | x86 | x64 | Arm32 | Arm64 | RV64GC |

loic-sharma · 2024-02-21T23:16:54Z

src/reference/supported-platforms.md

+{% capture beta %}
+ <span class="material-symbols"
+       style="color: #13C2AD"
+       aria-label="The Flutter SDK supports ARM64 in beta the only architecture on Windows"


Windows Arm64 is "initially supported" on all channels

parlough

Thanks for those adjustments Tony! I haven't had a chance to take a look at the a11y improvements to the icons, but thanks for the additional focus there.

Some comments as I was reading through again:

parlough · 2024-02-22T00:45:51Z

src/reference/supported-platforms.md

+       role="img">do_not_disturb_on</span>
+{% endcapture %}
+
+| Platform |   x86   |   x64   |  ARM32  |   ARM64   | RV64GC   |


Suggested change

| Platform | x86 | x64 | ARM32 | ARM64 | RV64GC |

| Platform | IA32 (x86) | x64 | ARM32 | ARM64 | RV64GC |

parlough · 2024-02-22T00:45:54Z

src/reference/supported-platforms.md

+{{yes}} Supported in all channels.  
+{{no}} Unsupported in all channels.  
+{{beta}} Supported in Beta channel only.  
+{{na}} No version exists.  


For more reliable and easier to notice forced new-lines, you can use   here. We do it elsewhere on the sites as well.

Generally I think of an OS or architecture as "supported on" or "supported by".

To highlight channels, we generally use code font or bold while keeping it lower case.

"No version exists" could be mistaken to mean that no version exists for Flutter. I think it would be beneficial to expand a bit to different it from the case where it's just unsupported.

Suggested change

{{yes}} Supported in all channels.

{{no}} Unsupported in all channels.

{{beta}} Supported in Beta channel only.

{{na}} No version exists.

{{yes}} Supported on all channels. 

{{no}} Unsupported on all channels. 

{{beta}} Supported on the `beta` and `main` channels only. 

{{na}} Unsupported by the operating system.

@parlough : No issue with most of this, but the N/A comes from mit's thoughts on Dart. I don't know if I want to confuse this if you look across both sites.

I would also like to keep markup to Markdown wherever possible.

parlough · 2024-02-22T00:47:41Z

src/reference/supported-platforms.md

+
+Flutter offers three tiers of support for deploying apps to target platforms.
+
+* **Supported**: Google tests these platforms on every commit.


Consider using a definition list here instead, since it seems to fit your use case and adds extra semantics.

I tried that, but it looked like it added a bit too much page length. Let me check again.

parlough · 2024-02-22T00:55:47Z

src/reference/supported-platforms.md

+* **Supported**: Google tests these platforms on every commit.
+* **Best effort**: Google intends to support these platforms
+  through coding practices. Google tests these platforms on an ad-hoc basis.
+* **Unsupported**: Google doesn't test or support these platforms.


I think it's better to not drag "Google" in to all three descriptions. Perhaps it makes sense for the "Supported" category, but the other two are likely better off as "The Flutter team" or "Flutter".

For the supported category, I think it also should be "The Flutter team" but can perhaps be strengthened with a mention of Google. I'm not sure exactly how yet, so I'll try to come back to this comment with ideas. Perhaps something like "The Flutter team, supported by Google, runs tests for these platforms on every commit."?

That's fair. The original said Google; I was just updating.

parlough · 2024-02-22T01:33:12Z

src/_data/chipsets.yml

+  x64: '<span class="material-symbols" style="color: #158477" aria-label="The Flutter SDK supports the x64 architecture on Linux" role="img">verified</span>'
+  arm32: '<span class="material-symbols" style="color: #D43324" aria-label="The Flutter SDK does not support the Arm32 architecture on Linux" role="img">dangerous</span>'
+  arm64: '<span class="material-symbols" style="color: #158477" aria-label="The Flutter SDK supports the Arm64 architecture on Linux" role="img">verified</span> '
+  risc: '<span class="material-symbols" style="color: #DADCE0" aria-label="No version of the Flutter SDK exists for the RV64GC architecture on Linux" role="img">do_not_disturb_on</span>'


From the definitions, it seems like this entry should be dangerous (Not supported) as the OS/arch combo exists, just Flutter's support for it doesn't yet.

zanderso

I have found at least one mistake on this page. Can we please revert this change and have it reviewed by more team members?

zanderso · 2024-02-22T18:01:06Z

src/_data/chipsets.yml

+- platform: 'Android'
+  x86: '<span class="material-symbols" style="color: #DADCE0" aria-label="No version of the Flutter SDK exists for the x86 architecture on Android" role="img">do_not_disturb_on</span>'
+  x64: '<span class="material-symbols" style="color: #DADCE0" aria-label="No version of the Flutter SDK exists for the x64 architecture on Android" role="img">do_not_disturb_on</span>'
+  arm32: '<span class="material-symbols" style="color: #DADCE0" aria-label="No version of the Flutter SDK exists for the Arm32 architecture on Android" role="img">do_not_disturb_on</span>'


This is definitely not correct. 32-bit ARM Android is 100% supported and we have the devices in our lab.

We can do another PR. Is there a definitive lust, @zanderso?

I would suggest adding the TLs from the teams that support each platform for the definitive answers.

I sent #10197 to revert. To clarify a bit, this is the definitive list =)

This reverts commit ae89565.

Added hardware architectures to supported platforms. Fixes flutter#10136 Fixes flutter#6713

Added hardware to supported platforms

8b2e74c

atsansone added the review.copy Awaiting Copy Review label Feb 20, 2024

atsansone requested review from sfshaza2, parlough, domesticmouse and MaryaBelanger as code owners February 20, 2024 22:46

sfshaza2 approved these changes Feb 20, 2024

View reviewed changes

sfshaza2 removed the review.copy Awaiting Copy Review label Feb 20, 2024

parlough reviewed Feb 20, 2024

View reviewed changes

parlough assigned atsansone Feb 20, 2024

parlough added the review.await-update Awaiting Updates after Edits label Feb 20, 2024

domesticmouse reviewed Feb 21, 2024

View reviewed changes

loic-sharma reviewed Feb 21, 2024

View reviewed changes

Updated per review and a11y changes

5b3375a

loic-sharma reviewed Feb 21, 2024

View reviewed changes

loic-sharma approved these changes Feb 21, 2024

View reviewed changes

parlough reviewed Feb 22, 2024

View reviewed changes

parlough assigned atsansone and unassigned atsansone Feb 22, 2024

parlough reviewed Feb 22, 2024

View reviewed changes

atsansone added 3 commits February 21, 2024 20:18

Update chipsets.yml for RISC on Windows

a842f53

Update supported-platforms.md

de0dd60

Update supported-platforms.md

b34790e

atsansone merged commit ae89565 into flutter:main Feb 22, 2024
8 checks passed

zanderso reviewed Feb 22, 2024

View reviewed changes

zanderso added a commit that referenced this pull request Feb 23, 2024

Revert "Added chipsets to supported platforms (#10174)"

28a46c1

This reverts commit ae89565.

zanderso mentioned this pull request Feb 23, 2024

Revert "Added chipsets to supported platforms" #10197

Closed

sfshaza2 removed the review.await-update Awaiting Updates after Edits label Mar 14, 2024

atsansone added a commit to atsansone/website that referenced this pull request Apr 5, 2024

Added chipsets to supported platforms (flutter#10174)

cc2701c

Added hardware architectures to supported platforms. Fixes flutter#10136 Fixes flutter#6713

atsansone added the st.RFM Ready to merge or land label Apr 15, 2024

	\| Platform \| x86 \| x64 \| ARM32 \| ARM64 \| RV64GC \|
	\| Platform \| x86 \| x64 \| Arm32 \| Arm64 \| RV64GC \|

	\| Platform \| x86 \| x64 \| ARM32 \| ARM64 \| RV64GC \|
	\| Platform \| IA32 (x86) \| x64 \| ARM32 \| ARM64 \| RV64GC \|


		Flutter offers three tiers of support for deploying apps to target platforms.

		* Supported: Google tests these platforms on every commit.

Added chipsets to supported platforms #10174

Added chipsets to supported platforms #10174

Conversation

atsansone commented Feb 20, 2024 • edited Loading

flutter-website-bot commented Feb 20, 2024 • edited Loading

sfshaza2 left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

parlough left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

parlough Feb 21, 2024 • edited Loading

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

sfshaza2 commented Feb 20, 2024

domesticmouse left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

loic-sharma Feb 21, 2024 • edited Loading

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

parlough left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

zanderso left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

atsansone commented Feb 20, 2024 •

edited

Loading

flutter-website-bot commented Feb 20, 2024 •

edited

Loading

parlough Feb 21, 2024 •

edited

Loading

loic-sharma Feb 21, 2024 •

edited

Loading