When I investiage some package tasks cache missing problem by bitbake-diffsigs,
I found that 'find_siginfo' called by bitbake-diffsigs is unable to construct
the correct package name(pn) when dealing with virtual targets.
Patch v2 introduces handling for 'lib64-' and 'lib32-' case besides '-native'
case.
And for test case, I'm currently not familiar with oe-selftest.However, I will
learn how to add test case to oe-selftest and will attempt to write a test case
for this.
Thank you.
Yang
On Tue, 2023-07-04 at 11:19 +0000, Ross Burton wrote:
> The `bb.siggen.compare_sigfiles` method transforms the key format from
> `[mc:<mc_name>:][virtual:][native:]<recipe path>:<taskname>` to
> `<recipe dir>/<recipe name>:<taskname>[:virtual][:native][:mc:<mc_name>]`
> by `clean_basepaths`. However, `find_siginfo` uses the original format
> to get the package name (pn) and task name.
>
> This commit corrects the method for deriving the pn and task name in
> `find_siginfo` and adds handling for multilib name.
>
> Signed-off-by: Yang Xu <yang...@mediatek.com>
> ---
> meta/lib/oe/sstatesig.py | 17 ++++++++++++-----
> 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/meta/lib/oe/sstatesig.py b/meta/lib/oe/sstatesig.py
> index f943df181e..f041a0c430 100644
> --- a/meta/lib/oe/sstatesig.py
> +++ b/meta/lib/oe/sstatesig.py
> @@ -321,11 +321,18 @@ def find_siginfo(pn, taskname, taskhashlist, d):
> if not taskname:
> # We have to derive pn and taskname
> key = pn
> - splitit = key.split('.bb:')
> - taskname = splitit[1]
> - pn = os.path.basename(splitit[0]).split('_')[0]
> - if key.startswith('virtual:native:'):
> - pn = pn + '-native'
> + if key.count(':') >= 2:
> + splitit, taskname, affix = key.split(':', 2)
> + else:
> + splitit, taskname = key.split(':', 1)
> + affix = ''
> + pn = os.path.splitext(os.path.basename(splitit))[0].split('_')[0]
> + affixitems = affix.split(':')
> + if affixitems[0] == 'virtual':
> + if affixitems[1] == 'native':
> + pn = pn + '-native'
> + if affixitems[1] == 'multilib':
> + pn = affixitems[2] + '-' + pn
How did you notice this problem, what’s the actual change between this and v1,
and more importantly can we add a test case for this obviously complex code?
Ross
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Links: You receive all messages sent to this group.
View/Reply Online (#183832):
https://lists.openembedded.org/g/openembedded-core/message/183832
Mute This Topic: https://lists.openembedded.org/mt/99940440/21656
Group Owner: openembedded-core+ow...@lists.openembedded.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.openembedded.org/g/openembedded-core/unsub
[arch...@mail-archive.com]
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
