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

[Chris Larson]

On Tue, Jul 3, 2012 at 12:04 PM, Khem Raj <raj.khem at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
> -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.

This is true, but conceptually it's a single message. Further, those
messages are tightly bound to the previous message in the multiple
message case, which means there's a particular context involved which
isn't reflected in the messages. They can and will be intertwined with
other messages from other tasks. That isn't the case if it's just one.
-- 
Christopher Larson