> -----Original Message----- > From: Richard Purdie <richard.pur...@linuxfoundation.org> > Sent: den 1 september 2024 13:31 > To: Peter Kjellerstedt <peter.kjellerst...@axis.com>; > openembedded-core@lists.openembedded.org > Subject: Re: [OE-core] [PATCH] insane: Drop oe.qa.add_message usage > > On Sun, 2024-09-01 at 11:21 +0000, Peter Kjellerstedt wrote: > > > -----Original Message----- > > > From: openembedded-core@lists.openembedded.org > > > <openembedded-core@lists.openembedded.org> On Behalf Of Richard Purdie > > > Sent: den 28 augusti 2024 18:15 > > > To: openembedded-core@lists.openembedded.org > > > Subject: [OE-core] [PATCH] insane: Drop oe.qa.add_message usage > > > > > > Drop the oe.qa.add_message() usage in favour of oe.qa.handle_error() > > > which has > > > code allowing it to be optimised with contains usage. > > > > > > The patch also drops unused return values which we stopped using a while > > > ago > > > and drops the now unneeded function parameters, generally leading to > > > cleaner > > > code. > > > > > > The code should be functionally equivalent. > > > > There is at least one difference. We have the following in our distro: > > > > WARN_QA:remove = "virtual-slash" > > ERROR_QA:remove = "virtual-slash" > > > > since we do not build any package feeds and thus this QA error is not a > > problem for us. > > > > After the change from add_message() to handle_error(), I now get a lot > > of: > > > > NOTE: /path/to/recipe_1.2.3.bb: QA Issue: RDEPENDS is set to > > virtual/foobar but the substring 'virtual/' holds no meaning in this > > context. It only works for build time dependencies, not runtime ones. It > > is suggested to use 'VIRTUAL-RUNTIME_' variables instead. [virtual-slash] > > > > during recipe parsing, which defeats the purpose of turning of the QA > > error. > > > > Now, we can of course fix our recipes to avoid the use of runtime > > dependencies on virtual/. I just wanted to point out that there is > > a difference in functionality, and one that is hard to do anything > > about in layers on top of OE-Core. > > You're right, that is an unintended side effect. That said, I think the > note log level is very noisy anyway? > > Is the issue that notes at parse time get handled differently to those > during task execution?
I would say so. Notes during task execution are only seen in the log, while notes before task execution are shown in the UI. However, I would not like to loose all notes shown before task execution begins, e.g., those that show how bitbake is progressing though its initial work are helpful to know what is going on. But the ones from oe.qa.handle_error() I can do without... Also notes such as: NOTE: Multiple providers are available for foobar (foobar, barfoo) Consider defining a PREFERRED_PROVIDER entry to match foobar might actually make more sense as a warning? > > Cheers, > > Richard //Peter
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- Links: You receive all messages sent to this group. View/Reply Online (#204052): https://lists.openembedded.org/g/openembedded-core/message/204052 Mute This Topic: https://lists.openembedded.org/mt/108145107/21656 Group Owner: openembedded-core+ow...@lists.openembedded.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.openembedded.org/g/openembedded-core/unsub [arch...@mail-archive.com] -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
