CI: rename build and run jobs

[SorinOlari]

Description

• linux:
  I changed the name from build-linux to build-and-run

• zephyr:
  I decided to run the mini sample in a separate job dedicated to runtime tasks, using a matrix strategy. This approach allows us to easily extend the workflow in the future by adding new samples that need to be executed. The matrix can be improved by adding the expected log, but I don't think it's necessary until we add other test cases

• Fixes issue # Rename CI jobs to clearly distinguish between build and build‑and‑run tasks #126

Type of change

Please delete options that are not relevant.

• CI system update

Checklist:

• My code follows the style guidelines of this project
• I have performed a self-review of my own code
• I have commented my code, particularly in hard-to-understand areas
• I have made corresponding changes to the documentation
• My changes generate no new warnings
• I have added tests that prove my fix is effective or that my feature works
• New and existing unit tests pass locally with my changes

[kr-t]

I think we shall discuss how we want to design this. We are back to sequential vs matrix run;
additionally, this workflow only works with native_sim and native_sim/64 targets, since we actually run the app. For the real-hardware devices other means will be necessary. Nevertheless, the high-level naming seems to be clear in this case.

Matrix builds give us more versability, but take longer in cases like this.

@casaroli wdyt?

[kr-t]

P.S. Moreover, matrix is setup to accept new samples/boards, but the expected output is hardcoded; earlier we had that also as an input. If we are to go with matrices, we need to refactor them to be scalable.

[casaroli]

I think it is ok. We will need to test different Zephyr builds, and this is the matrix for testing the native_sim (we can add the matrix later)

[casaroli]

I think I am missing something here.

We renamed the build workflow to "build and run", but then we removed the run step from the workflow?

If we separate the run into another workflow (I have doubts how useful this is), this workflow should only be called "build".

If we keep the run in this workflow, it should be renamed to "build and run".

Did I miss something?

[casaroli]

I think I am missing something here.

We renamed the build workflow to "build and run", but then we removed the run step from the workflow?

If we separate the run into another workflow (I have doubts how useful this is), this workflow should only be called "build".

If we keep the run in this workflow, it should be renamed to "build and run".

Did I miss something?

I realised these are different workflows. Please ignore my comment