Add uart_read_some_bytes() to allow reading into a buffer without waiting until that buffer is full (IDFGH-16435)

[0xFEEDC0DE64]

The espressif uart api is quite weird to only read some data into my buffer but not wait until its full (I need this for modbus).
My new api fixes this by allowing to do partial buffer reads from uart. Timeout will only expire, if 0 bytes are received

[github-actions]

Warnings

⚠️

Some issues found for the commit messages in this PR: the commit message "Add uart_read_some_bytes() to allow reading into a buffer without waiting until that buffer is full": 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 0xFEEDC0DE64, 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 1d42e1f

[BitsForPeople]

Already under way in #17462 :)

[0xFEEDC0DE64]

@BitsForPeople your diff looks way more complicated and also touches other functions besides the newly added, did I make a mistake in my implementation?

[BitsForPeople]

@0xFEEDC0DE64 No, looks ok too and should in practice be pretty much functionally equivalent (except for the timeout thing I also fixed in that PR).