Hi Mathieu,
Thanks for reviewing the patch.
This change is for Bug 15940 ("Detect tags like Upstream-Status after the
scissors in patches").
You are right to point this out. On re-checking, the current patch includes
unintended indentation changes, and the if block appearing at the same
level as the function definition is not intentional.
The goal of the patch is only to introduce the warning logic, and the
indentation changes are not required for that.
I'll prepare and resend a cleaned-up version with proper indentation and a
minimal diff so the functional change can be reviewed clearly.
Thanks for catching this.
Best regards,
Aditya
On Wed, Jun 10, 2026, 10:41 PM Mathieu Dubois-Briand <
[email protected]> wrote:
> On Tue Jun 9, 2026 at 10:47 AM CEST, Aditya GS via lists.openembedded.org
> wrote:
> > Detect cases where Upstream-Status is placed after the patch
> > scissors ("---") and emit a warning instead of failing.
> >
> > Such placement may be intentional in some workflows to avoid
> > including the tag in upstream commits.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Aditya GS <[email protected]>
> > ---
> > meta/lib/patchtest/tests/test_patch.py | 187 ++++++++++++-------------
> > 1 file changed, 89 insertions(+), 98 deletions(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/meta/lib/patchtest/tests/test_patch.py
> b/meta/lib/patchtest/tests/test_patch.py
> > index f427b7a8b0..79aa8f100c 100644
> > --- a/meta/lib/patchtest/tests/test_patch.py
> > +++ b/meta/lib/patchtest/tests/test_patch.py
> > @@ -40,116 +40,107 @@ class TestPatch(base.Base):
> > self.skip('No new CVE patches introduced')
> >
> > def test_upstream_status_presence_format(self):
> > - if not TestPatch.newpatches:
> > - self.skip("There are no new software patches, no reason to
> test Upstream-Status presence/format")
> > + if not TestPatch.newpatches:
> > + self.skip("There are no new software patches, no reason to test
> Upstream-Status presence/format")
>
>
> Hi Aditya,
>
> Thanks for your patch.
>
> Maybe I'm missing something, but the whole re-indentation of the file
> looks wrong. Particularly here, the "if" block is at the same level as
> the function definition. Can you confirm this is intended?
>
> Thanks,
> Mathieu
>
> --
> Mathieu Dubois-Briand, Bootlin
> Embedded Linux and Kernel engineering
> https://bootlin.com
>
>
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Links: You receive all messages sent to this group.
View/Reply Online (#238423):
https://lists.openembedded.org/g/openembedded-core/message/238423
Mute This Topic: https://lists.openembedded.org/mt/119723121/21656
Group Owner: [email protected]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.openembedded.org/g/openembedded-core/unsub
[[email protected]]
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
