Improve consistency with bittest content checker + sanitize.py

Improve consistency with bittest content checker + sanitize.py

[cyril Romain]

Following the advice of Holger, I integrated the sanitize.py script into 
the bittest content checker module (at least locally on my machine).
As a reminder:
- bittest is a test suite for bitbake (see the "Bittest advertisement" 
mail). Bittest comes with a "content checker" module able to check the 
*content* of bitbake recipes (the variables and routines used, if theirs 
content is correct and not deprecated, etc.) .
- sanitize.py is aimed to check the *form* of one bitbake recipe, 
according to the rules specified in the format and style guide: 
http://www.openembedded.org/wiki/StyleGuide.

So I think the two complement each other and now provide a "form and 
content" checker for bitbake recipes, a valuable tool to improve the 
metadata consistency.
In addition to the possibility to report test results to Tinderbox 
(http://www.openembedded.org/wiki/TinderBox), bittest is now able to 
send a mail to recipe maintainer when inconsistencies or errors are 
detected, with the sanitized recipe in attachment (that of course may 
still need manual edition).


If you are interested, please let me know.

Thanks Holger for having insisted for me to integrate the script into 
bittest. Thank you, Koen, for the 'send mail' idea.

Best regards,

 Cyril

PS: I also updated the section list in the content checker according to 
the recent discussion.

Re: Improve consistency with bittest content checker + sanitize.py

[Koen Kooi]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

cyril Romain schreef:
> Following the advice of Holger, I integrated the sanitize.py script into 
> the bittest content checker module (at least locally on my machine).
> As a reminder:
> - bittest is a test suite for bitbake (see the "Bittest advertisement" 
> mail). Bittest comes with a "content checker" module able to check the 
> *content* of bitbake recipes (the variables and routines used, if theirs 
> content is correct and not deprecated, etc.) .
> - sanitize.py is aimed to check the *form* of one bitbake recipe, 
> according to the rules specified in the format and style guide: 
> http://www.openembedded.org/wiki/StyleGuide.
> 
> So I think the two complement each other and now provide a "form and 
> content" checker for bitbake recipes, a valuable tool to improve the 
> metadata consistency.

I'd like to point out that the-script-formerly-known-as-sanitize.py checks for *OE* styles
 and *OE* vars, instead of being a generic tool to check bitbake recipes. What I don't
know is where the border between 'bitbake' and 'OE' lies, but bittest is starting to look
like OEtest :)

regards,

Koen
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.1 (Darwin)

iD8DBQFFCGG6MkyGM64RGpERAq76AJ0Qmx+eYFJfgtgggfsDGlmzU9WKnwCfftma
aoqu6OQRnrkckCleIZyh0uk=
=5Nxf
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

Re: Improve consistency with bittest content checker + sanitize.py

[Paul Sokolovsky]

Hello Koen,

Wednesday, September 13, 2006, 10:53:31 PM, you wrote:

[]

> I'd like to point out that the-script-formerly-known-as-sanitize.py checks for *OE* styles
>  and *OE* vars, instead of being a generic tool to check bitbake recipes. What I don't
> know is where the border between 'bitbake' and 'OE' lies, but bittest is starting to look
> like OEtest :)

  Let's put bitbake into OE repo then? ;-))


> regards,

> Koen


-- 
Best regards,
 Paul                            mailto:pmiscml@gmail.com

Re: Improve consistency with bittest content checker + sanitize.py

[Koen Kooi]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Paul Sokolovsky schreef:
> Hello Koen,
>
> Wednesday, September 13, 2006, 10:53:31 PM, you wrote:
>
> []
>
>> I'd like to point out that the-script-formerly-known-as-sanitize.py checks for *OE* styles
>>  and *OE* vars, instead of being a generic tool to check bitbake recipes. What I don't
>> know is where the border between 'bitbake' and 'OE' lies, but bittest is starting to look
>> like OEtest :)
>
>   Let's put bitbake into OE repo then? ;-))

and reverse http://oe-devel.bkbits.net:8080/openembedded/patch@1.2648.59.105 as well?



-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.1 (Darwin)

iD8DBQFFCGXyMkyGM64RGpERAocIAJ982sJJR0PhhWym5zFWF6IuA2rT/gCeK5sP
4AbvaUKvazHO9mGPs6rcrhQ=
=gxr8
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

Re: Improve consistency with bittest content checker + sanitize.py

[Michael 'Mickey' Lauer]

> >> I'd like to point out that the-script-formerly-known-as-sanitize.py checks for *OE* styles
> >>  and *OE* vars, instead of being a generic tool to check bitbake recipes. What I don't
> >> know is where the border between 'bitbake' and 'OE' lies, but bittest is starting to look
> >> like OEtest :)
> >
> >   Let's put bitbake into OE repo then? ;-))
> 
> and reverse http://oe-devel.bkbits.net:8080/openembedded/patch@1.2648.59.105 as well?

No way. Splitting BitBake and OpenEmbedded helped us a lot to draw the
borders between
a generic task executor and cross-building specific issues. We don't
want to go back to the stone ages.

-- 
Regards,

Michael 'Mickey' Lauer | FreeLancer | http://www.Vanille-Media.de