Re: [OE-Core][PATCH v3 1/2] testimage: move TESTIMAGE_FAILED_QA_ARTIFACTS default to core-image

[Richard Purdie <richard.purdie@linuxfoundation.org>]

On Mon, 2024-02-05 at 20:22 +0100, Alexis Lothoré wrote:
> Hello Richard, thanks for the fast review
> 
> On 2/5/24 16:08, Richard Purdie wrote:
> > On Mon, 2024-02-05 at 15:37 +0100, Alexis Lothoré via
> > lists.openembedded.org wrote:
> 
> [...]
> 
> > > -TESTIMAGE_FAILED_QA_ARTIFACTS ??= "\
> > > -    ${localstatedir}/log \
> > > -    ${sysconfdir}/version \
> > > -    ${sysconfdir}/os-release"
> > > -
> > >  # You can set (or append to) TEST_SUITES in local.conf to select the tests
> > >  # which you want to run for your target.
> > >  # The test names are the module names in meta/lib/oeqa/runtime/cases.
> > 
> > I can imagine why ??= breaks if you use +=.
> > 
> > Does this work if you change it from ??= to just = ?
> 
> I've indeed given a try to this before moving TESTIMAGE_FAILED_QA_ARTIFACTS to
> core-image, but when using "=" instead of "?=" or "??=", I observe that the part
> affecting TESTIMAGE_FAILED_QA_ARTIFACTS in core-image-ptest is not taken, so we
> are missing the ptests artifacts (but we still get the generic artifacts defined
> in testimage.bbclass). So to summarize:
> - "??=" or "?=" : we only get ptests artifacts, not the "generic" one
> (/etc/version, /var/log, etc)
> - "=": we only get the generic artifacts, not the ptests one.
> It is not clear for me why the second one fails, and
> TESTIMAGE_FAILED_QA_ARTIFACTS does not appear at all in 'bitbake -e" output,
> which makes it even more cryptic to me.
> 
> > I'd really prefer to keep this in testimage.bbclass.Recipes should be
> > able to use += if it is set with = and the addition is after the class
> > inherit.
> 
> Based on my understanding of bitbake manual, I theoretically agree with you,
> yet, as mentioned above this is not the behavior I observe, so I may be missing
> something important here. Maybe the parsing order is not the one I think I am
> observing, maybe its multiconfig, maybe something else.
> I can try to dig this further and clarify why it does not work as expected with "="

I would like to better understand why this isn't doing what we
expect...


Cheers,

Richard