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

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

[Saul Wold]

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)
 
 	bb.build.exec_func("package_name_hook", d)
 
-- 
1.7.10.4

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

[Chris Larson]

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*
-- 
Christopher Larson

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

[Saul Wold]

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!

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

[Khem Raj]

-Khem

On Jul 3, 2012, at 10:12 AM, Saul Wold <sgw@linux.intel.com> wrote:

> 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.

If its flagged as error then count really doesn't matter and if it is warning then user doesnt care 
But reporting all together may be better

> 
> Could work either way, but I like the exaggerated count.
> 
> Sau!
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Openembedded-core mailing list
> Openembedded-core@lists.openembedded.org
> http://lists.linuxtogo.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openembedded-core

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

[Chris Larson]

On Tue, Jul 3, 2012 at 12:04 PM, Khem Raj <raj.khem@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
> -Khem
>
> On Jul 3, 2012, at 10:12 AM, Saul Wold <sgw@linux.intel.com> wrote:
>
>> 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.
>
> If its flagged as error then count really doesn't matter and if it is warning then user doesnt care
> But reporting all together may be better
>
>>
>> Could work either way, but I like the exaggerated count.

This is true, but conceptually it's a single message. Further, those
messages are tightly bound to the previous message in the multiple
message case, which means there's a particular context involved which
isn't reflected in the messages. They can and will be intertwined with
other messages from other tasks. That isn't the case if it's just one.
-- 
Christopher Larson