| Message ID | 20230215172041.636292-3-Martin.Jansa@gmail.com |
|---|---|
| State | New |
| Headers | show |
| Series | [1/3] insane.bbclass: use 4 spaces for indentation | expand |
On Wed, 2023-02-15 at 18:20 +0100, Martin Jansa wrote: > * the idea was to reuse the same function as I've noticed that the > QA check which was added to insane.bbclass in: > https://git.openembedded.org/openembedded-core/commit/?id=76a685bfcf927593eac67157762a53259089ea8a > is in some cases more strcit than scripts/contrib/patchreview.py > > To be honest I wasn't aware of scripts/contrib/patchreview.py > existence when I've asked about moving check_upstream_status() > to oe.qa in order to write standalone script just like > patchreview.py, now I don't feel strongly about sharing this > functionality (other than adjusting regexes in patchreview.py) > > * it finds one "new" issue in oe-core: > Malformed Upstream-Status 'Malformed Upstream-Status in patch > meta/recipes-support/libssh2/files/0001-Don-t-let-host-enviroment-to-decide-if-a-test-is-bui.patch > Please correct according to https://www.openembedded.org/wiki/Commit_Patch_Message_Guidelines#Patch_Header_Recommendations:_Upstream-Status : > Upstream-Status: Inappropriate[oe specific]' (meta/recipes-support/libssh2/files/0001-Don-t-let-host-enviroment-to-decide-if-a-test-is-bui.patch) > > * but unlike the QA check patchreview.py will report this: > -Upstream-Status: Submitted [https://github.com/madler/zlib/pull/599] > +Upstream-Broken-Status: Submitted [https://github.com/madler/zlib/pull/599] > > as a missing Upstream-Status instead of malformed as reported by QA check: > > ERROR: zlib-native-1.2.13-r0 do_patch: QA Issue: Malformed Upstream-Status in patch > /OE/build/oe-core/openembedded-core/meta/recipes-core/zlib/zlib/0001-configure-Pass-LDFLAGS-to-link-tests.patch > Please correct according to https://www.openembedded.org/wiki/Commit_Patch_Message_Guidelines#Patch_Header_Recommendations:_Upstream-Status : > Upstream-Broken-Status: Submitted [https://github.com/madler/zlib/pull/599] [patch-status-core] > > * RFC: let me know if you think it's worth re-working this to better > integrate (e.g. detecting Upstream-Broken-Status and not repeating > .patch path in patchreview.py output) or if I should just adjust > regexes in patchreview.py. FWIW I quite like the idea of detecting malformed entries and it would be nice if both pieces of code behaved the same way... Cheers, Richard
diff --git a/scripts/contrib/patchreview.py b/scripts/contrib/patchreview.py index b22cc07f0a..ce6b0f05c4 100755 --- a/scripts/contrib/patchreview.py +++ b/scripts/contrib/patchreview.py @@ -42,7 +42,9 @@ def blame_patch(patch): "--", patch)).decode("utf-8").splitlines() def patchreview(path, patches): - import re, os.path + import re, os.path, sys + sys.path.append(os.path.join(sys.path[0], '../../meta/lib')) + import oe.qa # General pattern: start of line, optional whitespace, tag with optional # hyphen or spaces, maybe a colon, some whitespace, then the value, all case @@ -72,12 +74,11 @@ def patchreview(path, patches): else: result.missing_sob = True - # Find the Upstream-Status tag match = status_re.search(content) if match: - value = match.group(1) - if value != "Upstream-Status:": + value = oe.qa.check_upstream_status(fullpath) + if value: result.malformed_upstream_status = value value = match.group(2).lower()
* the idea was to reuse the same function as I've noticed that the QA check which was added to insane.bbclass in: https://git.openembedded.org/openembedded-core/commit/?id=76a685bfcf927593eac67157762a53259089ea8a is in some cases more strcit than scripts/contrib/patchreview.py To be honest I wasn't aware of scripts/contrib/patchreview.py existence when I've asked about moving check_upstream_status() to oe.qa in order to write standalone script just like patchreview.py, now I don't feel strongly about sharing this functionality (other than adjusting regexes in patchreview.py) * it finds one "new" issue in oe-core: Malformed Upstream-Status 'Malformed Upstream-Status in patch meta/recipes-support/libssh2/files/0001-Don-t-let-host-enviroment-to-decide-if-a-test-is-bui.patch Please correct according to https://www.openembedded.org/wiki/Commit_Patch_Message_Guidelines#Patch_Header_Recommendations:_Upstream-Status : Upstream-Status: Inappropriate[oe specific]' (meta/recipes-support/libssh2/files/0001-Don-t-let-host-enviroment-to-decide-if-a-test-is-bui.patch) * but unlike the QA check patchreview.py will report this: -Upstream-Status: Submitted [https://github.com/madler/zlib/pull/599] +Upstream-Broken-Status: Submitted [https://github.com/madler/zlib/pull/599] as a missing Upstream-Status instead of malformed as reported by QA check: ERROR: zlib-native-1.2.13-r0 do_patch: QA Issue: Malformed Upstream-Status in patch /OE/build/oe-core/openembedded-core/meta/recipes-core/zlib/zlib/0001-configure-Pass-LDFLAGS-to-link-tests.patch Please correct according to https://www.openembedded.org/wiki/Commit_Patch_Message_Guidelines#Patch_Header_Recommendations:_Upstream-Status : Upstream-Broken-Status: Submitted [https://github.com/madler/zlib/pull/599] [patch-status-core] * RFC: let me know if you think it's worth re-working this to better integrate (e.g. detecting Upstream-Broken-Status and not repeating .patch path in patchreview.py output) or if I should just adjust regexes in patchreview.py. Signed-off-by: Martin Jansa <Martin.Jansa@gmail.com> --- scripts/contrib/patchreview.py | 9 +++++---- 1 file changed, 5 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)