Re: [docs] [PATCH v2] ref-manual: Add documentation for the unimplemented-ptest QA warning

[Michael Opdenacker <michael.opdenacker@bootlin.com>]

Yoann, Jérémy,

Thanks for the documentation patch!

On 04.10.23 at 16:36, Yoann Congal wrote:
> From: Jérémy Rosen <jeremy.rosen@smile.fr>
>
> Signed-off-by: Jérémy Rosen <jeremy.rosen@smile.fr>
> Reviewed-by: Yoann Congal <yoann.congal@smile.fr>
> ---
> This is the v2 for the doc of this series:
> https://lists.openembedded.org/g/openembedded-core/message/188680
>
> v1->v2:
> * Fix shortlog tag
>
>   documentation/ref-manual/classes.rst   |  3 +++
>   documentation/ref-manual/qa-checks.rst | 11 +++++++++++
>   2 files changed, 14 insertions(+)
>
> diff --git a/documentation/ref-manual/classes.rst b/documentation/ref-manual/classes.rst
> index 3f0d4844e..3eede8c7b 100644
> --- a/documentation/ref-manual/classes.rst
> +++ b/documentation/ref-manual/classes.rst
> @@ -1480,6 +1480,9 @@ Here are the tests you can list with the :term:`WARN_QA` and
>      also inherits :ref:`ref-classes-features_check` in order for the
>      requirement to actually work.
>   
> +-  ``unimplemented-ptest:`` Checks that ptest are implemented for upstream
> +   tests.

Shouldn't it be "ptests" instead of "ptest"?

> +
>   -  ``unlisted-pkg-lics:`` Checks that all declared licenses applying
>      for a package are also declared on the recipe level (i.e. any license
>      in ``LICENSE:*`` should appear in :term:`LICENSE`).
> diff --git a/documentation/ref-manual/qa-checks.rst b/documentation/ref-manual/qa-checks.rst
> index 4a02e7206..cc9afeb7c 100644
> --- a/documentation/ref-manual/qa-checks.rst
> +++ b/documentation/ref-manual/qa-checks.rst
> @@ -789,6 +789,17 @@ Errors and Warnings
>       use a relative path rather than an absolute one, or to pick up the path from
>       runtime configuration or environment variables.
>   
> +.. _qa-check-unimplemented-ptest:
> +
> +- ``<tool> tests detected [unimpemented-ptest]``

s/unimpemented/unimplemented/

> +
> +    This check will detect if the source of the package contains some upstream-
> +    provided tests and, if such tests are detected, that ptests are implemented
s/if such tests are detected/if so/
> +    for this recipe.  see the ":ref:`dev-manual/packages:testing packages with ptest`"


s/see/See/

Looks good to me otherwise.
Thanks in advance for a quick V3 ;-)
Cheers
Michael.

-- 
Michael Opdenacker, Bootlin
Embedded Linux and Kernel engineering
https://bootlin.com