Re: [RFC v2] package.bbclass: enable the use of package_qa_handle_error

[Saul Wold <sgw@linux.intel.com>]

On 07/03/2012 06:55 AM, Chris Larson wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 2, 2012 at 5:40 PM, Saul Wold<sgw@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@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.

Could work either way, but I like the exaggerated count.

Sau!