refactor(soft_spi_master_main.c): remove dead code

[jurstu]

Description

Just removing a line that is no longer required. It seems to had been copy-pasted from dedicated_gpio/soft_uart example. It isn't found anywhere in the code for SPI example.

Related

Testing

Did a ctrl+f for any use of the define in code. Nothing appeared in SPI example, 1 use appeared in UART example (buffer length definition)

Checklist

Before submitting a Pull Request, please ensure the following:

• 🚨 This PR does not introduce breaking changes.
• All CI checks (GH Actions) pass. // this has gotta be checked after I submit a PR
• Documentation is updated as needed. // no need
• Tests are updated or added as necessary. // no need
• Code is well-commented, especially in complex areas. // guess so..
• Git history is clean — commits are squashed to the minimum necessary. // yes

[CLAassistant]

All committers have signed the CLA.

[github-actions]

Warnings

⚠️

Some issues found for the commit messages in this PR: the commit message "Update soft_spi_master_main.c": summary looks empty type/action looks empty Please fix these commit messages - here are some basic tips: follow Conventional Commits style correct format of commit message should be: <type/action>(<scope/component>): <summary>, for example fix(esp32): Fixed startup timeout issue allowed types are: change,ci,docs,feat,fix,refactor,remove,revert,test sufficiently descriptive message summary should be between 20 to 72 characters and start with upper case letter avoid Jira references in commit messages (unavailable/irrelevant for our customers) TIP: Install pre-commit hooks and run this check when committing (uses the Conventional Precommit Linter).

👋 Hello jurstu, we appreciate your contribution to this project!

---

📘 Please review the project's Contributions Guide for key guidelines on code, documentation, testing, and more.

---

🖊️ Please also make sure you have read and signed the Contributor License Agreement for this project.

---

Click to see more instructions ...

This automated output is generated by the PR linter DangerJS, which checks if your Pull Request meets the project's requirements and helps you fix potential issues.

DangerJS is triggered with each push event to a Pull Request and modify the contents of this comment.

Please consider the following:
- Danger mainly focuses on the PR structure and formatting and can't understand the meaning behind your code or changes.
- Danger is not a substitute for human code reviews; it's still important to request a code review from your colleagues.
- Resolve all warnings (⚠️ ) before requesting a review from human reviewers - they will appreciate it.
- To manually retry these Danger checks, please navigate to the Actions tab and re-run last Danger workflow.

Review and merge process you can expect ...

We do welcome contributions in the form of bug reports, feature requests and pull requests via this public GitHub repository.

This GitHub project is public mirror of our internal git repository

1. An internal issue has been created for the PR, we assign it to the relevant engineer.
2. They review the PR and either approve it or ask you for changes or clarifications.
3. Once the GitHub PR is approved, we synchronize it into our internal git repository.
4. In the internal git repository we do the final review, collect approvals from core owners and make sure all the automated tests are passing.
- At this point we may do some adjustments to the proposed change, or extend it by adding tests or documentation.
5. If the change is approved and passes the tests it is merged into the default branch.
5. On next sync from the internal git repository merged change will appear in this public GitHub repository.

Generated by 🚫 dangerJS against 7eaf7f9

[suda-morris]

sha=7eaf7f9ebe60373aa843531553ef58a726607225

[jurstu]

Is there anything more required for this PR to go forward, or is it just waiting for being handled?

[suda-morris]

It'a always merged in our internal gitlab, still need some time to sync it to the github.