Add docker definition for nRF Connect SDK

[Damian-Nordic]

Problem

We need a docker image to check build of the nRF Connect platform in the Examples github workflow (once the platform is added; see #1493).

Proposed Solution

Put a new docker image definition in integrations/docker/images/chip-build-nrfconnect-platform directory.

fixes #1528

[rwalker-apple]

could this be folded into the chip-build-nrf-platform image, instead?

[Damian-Nordic]

@rwalker-apple Thanks for your comment. I thought that if a docker image is not only meant for CI, but potentially also for users (who usually won't build an application for both nRF5 and nRF Connect at a time), then it's better to have two smaller than one bigger image. What do you think?

[rwalker-apple]

@rwalker-apple Thanks for your comment. I thought that if a docker image is not only meant for CI, but potentially also for users (who usually won't build an application for both nRF5 and nRF Connect at a time), then it's better to have two smaller than one bigger image. What do you think?

I don't have any strong feelings, just noticed that you're replicating much of what the nrf-platform docker image is.

One thought I have is that this may increase the maintenance burden for CHIP's "build for Nordic" environment, as there would be 2 places the platform and compiler version are maintained.

If tooling for the 2 Nordic targets don't conflict with each other, I'd just tack onto the other image (maybe rename it, as well?)

[Damian-Nordic]

I don't have any strong feelings, just noticed that you're replicating much of what the nrf-platform docker image is.

One thought I have is that this may increase the maintenance burden for CHIP's "build for Nordic" environment, as there would be 2 places the platform and compiler version are maintained.

If tooling for the 2 Nordic targets don't conflict with each other, I'd just tack onto the other image (maybe rename it, as well?)

That's a good point although I would still prefer having separate images for both SDKs not to bloat their sizes (despite of the common pieces most of their components are exclusive). But I guess I can turn the nrf Dockerfile into a multi-stage one on the next update.

[rwalker-apple]

I don't have any strong feelings, just noticed that you're replicating much of what the nrf-platform docker image is.
One thought I have is that this may increase the maintenance burden for CHIP's "build for Nordic" environment, as there would be 2 places the platform and compiler version are maintained.
If tooling for the 2 Nordic targets don't conflict with each other, I'd just tack onto the other image (maybe rename it, as well?)

That's a good point although I would still prefer having separate images for both SDKs not to bloat their sizes (despite of the common pieces most of their components are exclusive). But I guess I can turn the nrf Dockerfile into a multi-stage one on the next update.

great plan. would you file an issue describing what needs fixing and what approach should be taken to address?

[Damian-Nordic]

great plan. would you file an issue describing what needs fixing and what approach should be taken to address?

sure, done!