[OE-core] [RFC v2] package.bbclass: enable the use of package_qa_handle_error

[Chris Larson]

On Mon, Jul 2, 2012 at 5:40 PM, Saul Wold <sgw at linux.intel.com> wrote:
> This will allow the reporting of these errors as either WARNINGs (default)
> or ERRORs if installed_vs_shipped is added to the ERROR_QA of the policy
> file (such as a <distro_name>.conf file.
>
> V2: found the code I had intended to send instead of that other junk,
>     was just not watching what I pushed on that one, sorry. (this is edit in
>     no in the actual commit message)
>
> Signed-off-by: Saul Wold <sgw at linux.intel.com>
> ---
>  meta/classes/package.bbclass |   11 ++++++++---
>  1 file changed, 8 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/meta/classes/package.bbclass b/meta/classes/package.bbclass
> index 0b98c6b..ff2ec96 100644
> --- a/meta/classes/package.bbclass
> +++ b/meta/classes/package.bbclass
> @@ -988,9 +988,14 @@ python populate_packages () {
>                                 unshipped.append(path)
>
>         if unshipped != []:
> -               bb.warn("For recipe %s, the following files/directories were installed but not shipped in any package:" % pn)
> -               for f in unshipped:
> -                       bb.warn("  " + f)
> +               msg = pn + ": Files/directories were installed but not shipped"
> +               skip = (d.getVar('INSANE_SKIP_' + pn, True) or "").split()
> +               if "installed_vs_shipped" in skip:
> +                       bb.note("Package %s skipping QA tests: installed_vs_shipped" % pn)
> +               else:
> +                       package_qa_handle_error("installed_vs_shipped", msg, d)
> +                       for f in unshipped:
> +                               package_qa_handle_error("installed_vs_shipped", "  " + f, d)

Hmm, I wonder if this is best, or if it should assemble a single
message with newlines separating the files. *thinks*
-- 
Christopher Larson