esp_tinyuf2: fix nvs hidden key (AEGHB-961)

[wormyrocks]

Description

Allows the use of hidden NVS keys in the uf2 config.ini.
Also fixes an error where NVS entries intended to be hidden would be shown, and entries intended to be shown would be hidden.

[CLAassistant]

Thank you for your submission! We really appreciate it. Like many open source projects, we ask that you sign our Contributor License Agreement before we can accept your contribution.
_{You have signed the CLA already but the status is still pending? Let us recheck it.}

[github-actions]

Warnings

⚠️

Some issues found for the commit messages in this PR: the commit message "esp_tinyuf2: fix nvs hidden key": summary looks too short type/action should be one of [change, ci, docs, feat, fix, refactor, remove, revert, test] the commit message "include temp fix from github issue 454/ AEGHB-940": probably contains Jira ticket reference (AEGHB-940). Please remove Jira tickets from commit messages. 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 wormyrocks, 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 67a4125

[lijunru-hub]

@wormyrocks LGTM！

[leeebo]

@wormyrocks, is there any difference? Whether there is a formal parameter or not, makes no difference to the function itself.

[wormyrocks]

On my machine it won't compile without this change - something to do with the compiler settings in tinyuf2.
Outside of the include guards, all the other declarations in that file follow the same style.

[leeebo]

@wormyrocks thanks for your contribution, It looks great to me!