fix(sntp): Lock / Unlock LWIP if CONFIG_LWIP_TCPIP_CORE_LOCKING is set

[mathieucarbou]

• Complete fix for: Crash with error message: "Required to lock TCPIP core functionality" #10526
• Complete fix for PR fix(sntp): Lock / Unlock LWIP if CONFIG_LWIP_TCPIP_CORE_LOCKING is set #10529

The previous PR didn't lock around

if (sntp_enabled()) {
    sntp_stop();
  }

... which causes the ESP to crash if SNTP is used, then the ESP is disconnected rom WiFi (WiFi down for example), then ESP reconnects when WiFi is up again, and a sntp call is made.

[github-actions]

Warnings

⚠️

Some issues found for the commit messages in this PR: the commit message "fix(sntp): Lock / Unlock LWIP if CONFIG_LWIP_TCPIP_CORE_LOCKING is set": footer must have leading blank line 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 mathieucarbou, we appreciate your contribution to 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.

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 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.
4. If the change is approved and passes the tests it is merged into the default branch.

Generated by 🚫 dangerJS against 71396de

[mathieucarbou]

@me-no-dev : fyi : might want this one for the release... I saw this remaining bug yesterday.

[github-actions]

Test Results

 56 files   56 suites   4m 18s ⏱️
 21 tests  21 ✅ 0 💤 0 ❌
134 runs  134 ✅ 0 💤 0 ❌

Results for commit 71396de.

♻️ This comment has been updated with latest results.

[me-no-dev]

@mathieucarbou thanks for taking care of this!