From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail-it0-f49.google.com (mail-it0-f49.google.com [209.85.214.49]) by mail.openembedded.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 35C7A77D6F for ; Fri, 7 Apr 2017 06:41:29 +0000 (UTC) Received: by mail-it0-f49.google.com with SMTP id y18so38305073itc.1 for ; Thu, 06 Apr 2017 23:41:31 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=intel-com.20150623.gappssmtp.com; s=20150623; h=message-id:subject:from:to:cc:date:in-reply-to:references :organization:mime-version:content-transfer-encoding; bh=yWtYkzynKjs6m5nNY21gbdHo0e1sQpKxrwVMwI9UAP0=; b=BN2NpJTsN/z/WLODp7G6aMYuypQSG0dVnkYbp76UrllaVkHWoAxXoF64mSyDXyefQk sH+d8cM7YganhfKYpSVZgAkiMnFr/xbGSK/MSYXlYxrau5w/ggtrsmWwTaO/KZpNS9uf NlQS/PlCzdLckkM2D2vQexc7aqMTrvcAj7TPos9Z3/gCIl/QrHTgBOZe8UgbyzcufBPH D8l4DtYFesONoTOIus0YZfAqFv4pnE8xkaMbd7tn6S5ZYIcCFCVuAuOHR8fgZRwH1EXX deQGwV4kN4Za3Tvlzh0HTLv7W/3MHjCjnwj9RCFm5J2dcq9dBAMk3Qql/1I8LqBS3fGr s07w== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:message-id:subject:from:to:cc:date:in-reply-to :references:organization:mime-version:content-transfer-encoding; bh=yWtYkzynKjs6m5nNY21gbdHo0e1sQpKxrwVMwI9UAP0=; b=S8//ZHdjU35UeTAj5Vcoyev/B8D16044D4sKyl2Gt05gLauJmqbOcGDmEtgd/rrZrM bqTHFyzJOrtCv5O5eOKUWYUUR2pwFsRNxZcHSARv0DJPhMjSiJZCf5J9KCU5FdrbEThb V7Pnl9A7cP3jgjZQA4tLQx8RCHW5sm9eQ0VReqZc39rukTak8FqzVMtbga5JyAdv4hMs y0JmPaxaJO2eKN91Pc9SX5DPjhR9Ce3oAs2HchXu2v2J2mqw2yhgrqeGlE/Mq9xQNgOp cd1gJFcjVF8T7/pkfaP7bBNBUL/v1H+ppDQYPJO5BIfiO+j/0370Rpsg+MwuVdNAeRad h47g== X-Gm-Message-State: AFeK/H3ITPaQ0p2aPHQ6yCmbTQFVClde7fwIQ4gpSO7u/RlqHXZ8bzb0XXNmVwTijczsAYS+ X-Received: by 10.36.70.210 with SMTP id j201mr29369824itb.109.1491547291386; Thu, 06 Apr 2017 23:41:31 -0700 (PDT) Received: from pohly-mobl1 (p5DE8EAD9.dip0.t-ipconnect.de. [93.232.234.217]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id n73sm2087578ioe.10.2017.04.06.23.41.29 (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Thu, 06 Apr 2017 23:41:30 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <1491547287.10884.57.camel@intel.com> From: Patrick Ohly To: Paul Eggleton Date: Fri, 07 Apr 2017 08:41:27 +0200 In-Reply-To: <5236508.TZczFS0D24@peggleto-mobl.ger.corp.intel.com> References: <5236508.TZczFS0D24@peggleto-mobl.ger.corp.intel.com> Organization: Intel GmbH, Dornacher Strasse 1, D-85622 Feldkirchen/Munich X-Mailer: Evolution 3.12.9-1+b1 Mime-Version: 1.0 Cc: openembedded-core@lists.openembedded.org Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/3] yocto-compat-layer: limit report of signature changes X-BeenThere: openembedded-core@lists.openembedded.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Patches and discussions about the oe-core layer List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 07 Apr 2017 06:41:31 -0000 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit On Fri, 2017-04-07 at 08:38 +1200, Paul Eggleton wrote: > On Thursday, 6 April 2017 1:36:05 AM NZST you wrote: > > AssertionError: False is not true : Layer meta-xxxx changed 120 > > signatures, initial differences (first hash without, second with layer): > > BTW, rather than self.assertTrue(False, ... ) you can just use self.fail(...) > and then you avoid this ugly "False is not True" bit. I suspected that there must be something like that when changing the message, but then was too lazy to look it up - thanks for pointing it out ;-} I'll change that in a V2. -- Best Regards, Patrick Ohly The content of this message is my personal opinion only and although I am an employee of Intel, the statements I make here in no way represent Intel's position on the issue, nor am I authorized to speak on behalf of Intel on this matter.