Hi,

I took a deeper dive and made the python based patchtest work (c.f. 
https://github.com/HerrMuellerluedenscheid/patchtest and  
https://github.com/HerrMuellerluedenscheid/patchtest-oe). TBH: it might have 
worked from the beginning but I found working through the code cumbersome as it 
was badly unlinted. So, I took the `black` hammer and fixed it.

There could still be some improvements made to this tool but it works. Check 
the docs how 
https://github.com/HerrMuellerluedenscheid/patchtest/blob/master/usage.adoc

TL;DR

To give it a try with one of the test files:

1. Install requirements from requirements.txt from both projects
2. Make sure to have `bitbake/lib/bb` and `patchtest` on PYTHONPATH (for 
tinfoil - I would rather prefer bitbake to be properly installable than hacking 
with PYTHONPATH but fine…)
3.  run
    patchtest 
<PATH-TO-patchtest-oe>/selftest/files/Merge.test_series_merge_on_head.fail 
<PATH-TO-openembedded-core> <PATCH-TO-patchtest-oe>/tests

So, I can submit an email patch with the changes but they will include style 
changes made by black. Thus be ready for a big change set… which was necessary.

Cheers
Marius


> On 5. Sept 2022, at 13:40, Richard Purdie 
> <[email protected]> wrote:
> 
> Hi Marius,
> 
> On Mon, 2022-09-05 at 13:25 +0200, Marius Kriegerowski wrote:
>> Picking up on this thread now, almost half a year later :) Sorry for
>> the late reply but turned out (a little surprising) that I’m going to
>> have a daughter soon which shifted my priorities a little…
> 
> Understandable, congratulations! :)
> 
>> So, I looked into patchtest a few months ago and found a couple of
>> issues where I considered a rewrite. So, I gave it a shot last
>> weekend but instead of python I used rust. You can find the demo
>> here: https://github.com/HerrMuellerluedenscheid/patchtest-rs
> 
> This doesn't seem like a good direction to me. I have nothing against
> rust, I've spent the past couple of months trying to sort out rust
> support in OE-Core. The problem is most of our tools (bitbake,
> autobuilder, buildbot and so on) are python based and most of our
> developers know python. Most don't know rust (myself included). Making
> a core tool hard to understand by our core developer base doesn't seem
> like a wise move.
> 
>> The functionality is currently limited to loading a patch from the
>> commandline, checking that the summary is in place and applying the
>> patch to a repository given by a url. The repo will be cloned on the
>> fly.
>> 
>> The next step would be an smtp client that checks for incoming
>> messages every N seconds and runs patchtest against patches and sends
>> back a short report of what worked and what didn’t.
>> 
>> I just wanted to check that revitalising patchtest is still an open
>> issue and would like to ask for quick feedback.
> 
> We definitely do want to revitialise it. One change is that we do now
> have publicinbox available for OE-Core and bitbake:
> 
> https://lore.kernel.org/openembedded-core/
> https://lore.kernel.org/bitbake-devel/
> 
> so rather than fighting SMTP, we should be able to read patches from
> there via the git representation.
> 
> Cheers,
> 
> Richard
> 

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Links: You receive all messages sent to this group.
View/Reply Online (#1632): 
https://lists.openembedded.org/g/openembedded-architecture/message/1632
Mute This Topic: https://lists.openembedded.org/mt/88763351/21656
Group Owner: [email protected]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.openembedded.org/g/openembedded-architecture/unsub 
[[email protected]]
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-

Reply via email to