Re: [docs] [bitbake-devel] [PATCH 3/4] knotty: convert warnings to errors when -W is passed

["Antonin Godard" <antonin.godard@bootlin.com>]

On Thu Oct 15, 2026 at 1:49 PM CEST, Richard Purdie wrote:
> On Thu, 2026-10-15 at 12:25 +0200, Antonin Godard wrote:
>> On Thu Oct 15, 2026 at 10:58 AM CEST, Richard Purdie via lists.yoctoproject.org wrote:
>> > On Tue, 2026-10-13 at 14:13 +0200, Antonin Godard via lists.openembedded.org wrote:
>> > > When -W is passed, modify the handlers to show warnings in red and set
>> > > the return value to 1. Add a summary line informing the user that the -W
>> > > option was used as it might not be obvious when looking at the bottom
>> > > the end of the console log.
>> > 
>> > The trouble is this doesn't make warnings behave exactly as errors and
>> > I think that is going to confuse people :/.
>> > 
>> > Specifically, if an error is encountered in a task, it will error and
>> > fail. The warning will show an error but continue anyway. I also
>> > suspect the warnings will still show as warnings in the log files and
>> > only appear as errors on the console.
>> 
>> Good point. So there's two directions this could take (if we want that feature):
>> 
>> - Make this option change the behavior of warnings, and make them _act_ (not
>>   just look) like errors, so a given task would stop in case of warning.
>> 
>> - Rename the option and make it clearer: warnings are still warnings but the
>>   return code will be 1 if there are any.
>> 
>>   Maybe "-W,--fail-on-warnings: Make bitbake return 1 if any warning is
>>   emitted"?
>> 
>> I feel like the second option might be best as the first one is changing the
>> behavior of tasks and I also think this might not be desirable.
>> 
>> With the second option it allows having a positive exit code on warnings while
>> still being able to have a look at all of them (not only the single one that
>> stopped the build as would happen with the first option), just as you would with
>> a normal bitbake execution.
>
> I think we need to see if there are others wanting this feature or not.
> I think with new option additions like this, we need to see a clear
> demand from the userbase for it. That feedback may also make it clearer
> which behaviour people would want.

Ross (copied here) was talking about it on IRC[1]. Hard to say which way or the
other was desired from this conversation though. It did give me the idea to
contribute this feature as I also need it sometimes.

I personally have seen multiple projects where builds started in CI environments
needed to stop when warnings are emitted. I'm happy to keep my scripts as they
are but I thought this series would make things a bit easier for users.

I cannot say which solution for it the userbase would prefer though!

[1]: https://libera.catirclogs.org/yocto/2026-09-03#1788452760-1788454399;

Antonin