From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mga14.intel.com (mga14.intel.com [143.182.124.37]) by yocto-www.yoctoproject.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id D569BE01471 for ; Wed, 29 May 2013 08:57:41 -0700 (PDT) Received: from azsmga002.ch.intel.com ([10.2.17.35]) by azsmga102.ch.intel.com with ESMTP; 29 May 2013 08:57:41 -0700 X-ExtLoop1: 1 X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.87,765,1363158000"; d="scan'208";a="248226481" Received: from unknown (HELO helios.localnet) ([10.252.121.189]) by AZSMGA002.ch.intel.com with ESMTP; 29 May 2013 08:57:39 -0700 From: Paul Eggleton To: "Barros Pena, Belen" Date: Wed, 29 May 2013 16:57:38 +0100 Message-ID: <1472366.Q2PehFIGti@helios> Organization: Intel Corporation User-Agent: KMail/4.10.2 (Linux/3.8.0-22-generic; KDE/4.10.2; i686; ; ) In-Reply-To: References: MIME-Version: 1.0 Cc: "Dragomir, CalinX L" , "Zhang, Jessica" , "webhob@yoctoproject.org" Subject: Re: [Webhob] task types and outcomes X-BeenThere: webhob@yoctoproject.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.13 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 29 May 2013 15:57:42 -0000 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7Bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" On Tuesday 28 May 2013 17:17:35 Barros Pena, Belen wrote: > Thanks, Paul. I guess we need to nail down what is that we are trying to > achieve by reporting sstate tasks vs. built tasks vs. previously built > tasks. From what I can remember, the main questions users need answered > are: > > * Why is this a built task when I was expecting it to reuse sstate objects? > * Why is this an sstate task when I was expecting it to build from scratch? These are common questions yes. > If those are indeed the main questions we need to answer, reporting missed > sstate tasks and built tasks as one probably makes things easier. The > metaphor would be a single task with a certain life cycle, and not 2 > separate tasks. So, "BitBake detected changes in the inputs for task x and > reran the task" would result in Web Hob reporting a single built task with > an sstate missed flag. If we report this case through 2 separate tasks > we'll need to link them to each other, so that users can reach one from > the other and get a full picture of what BitBake did during the build. > This is also a viable option, but it will result in a much longer table of > tasks, with 2 entries for a certain task + recipe combination. > > Which way we report tasks impacts the way we structure the Web Hob tasks > table. From this classification of tasks: > > * Sstate > ** Missed > ** Completed > ** Failed > > * Built > ** Previously built > ** Completed > ** Failed > > We would move to this one: > > * Completed > ** Previously built > ** Sstate > ** Built > *** Sstate missed? Y/N > *** Sstae failed? Y/N > > * Failed > ** Built I think this is a reasonable approach. Although it does slightly obscure the details of the tasks bitbake is running it's going to be a bit easier for the user to follow with respect to the information they're most interested in. Cheers, Paul -- Paul Eggleton Intel Open Source Technology Centre