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

[Khem Raj]

-Khem

On Jul 3, 2012, at 10:12 AM, Saul Wold <sgw at linux.intel.com> wrote:

> On 07/03/2012 06:55 AM, Chris Larson wrote:
>> 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*
> 
> So that would cause only 1 ERROR or WARNING count, vs N ERRORs or WARNIGS in the final count for every file that is listed, I think it's good to have the larger count it signal's something went wrong if that count increases greatly when a recipe is changed.

If its flagged as error then count really doesn't matter and if it is warning then user doesnt care 
But reporting all together may be better

> 
> Could work either way, but I like the exaggerated count.
> 
> Sau!
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Openembedded-core mailing list
> Openembedded-core at lists.openembedded.org
> http://lists.linuxtogo.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openembedded-core