On Sat, Aug 5, 2023 at 7:54 PM Maksim Chichikalov <[email protected]> wrote:
> Hi Joshua. > > My name is Max; nice to e-meet you. I need your help with Equivalence > Server :) > I watched your presentation on Youtube - it 100% helped me to understand > the logic better and debug the issue we are facing. Thank you for all your > input into OE development. > > I found in OE repo that you introduced "def OEOuthashBasic()", so I > decided to write to you first before opening the topic on an email list. > > *The problem:* > > Input data are propagated to the output hash generation function, which > generates a different out-hash. > > *Description:* > > All "_git.bb" recipes have to append SRCPV to PV. As a result, PV is > different on each commit. > > The OEOuthashBasic function includes SSTATE_PKGSPEC to generate hash, > which contains PV (PV contains git hash). As a result, there is no way to > generate the same out-hash even if changes introduced within a commit were > trivial. > Right, this is sort of on purpose, because the hash equivalence is basically trying to say that an sstate object can be used in place of another one, even when the task hashes aren't the same (but the output hashes are). However, the sstate code itself will only look for sstate object with a certain name (which include PV); hash equivalency does have _some_ control over the file name sstate looks for, since it will replace the taskhash portion of the name with the unified hash, but it doesn't have complete control. > > In our codebase, our components have API part, which is managed by an > independent recipe per component. The described above problem caused the > recompilation of all components dependent on API, even in cases when API > was not changed. CI for pull requests recompiles mostly the entire code > base, I need to do something with it. (sorry, quite hard for me to explain > it in a nutshell, let me know if you like to know slightly more details) > Ya, sounds like a typical mono-repo design? > > I see a couple of options for us: > > - Add a custom implementation of out-hash generated function and > overwrite SSTATE_HASHEQUIV_METHOD. > - Better understand why it's mandatory to append SRCPV to PV, and > maybe it's flexible in our cases to do it. > > This might be the best option, at least for your recipes, but I've CC'd the list for additional feedback > > - Propose a patch to fix OEOuthashBasic(). > > In my humble opinion, the commit's hash shouldn't be included in out-hash > generation, it doesn't make sense. Unless I'm missing something important - > What are your thoughts? > Yes and no. It's not intentional, but a side effect of hash equivalency trying to make sure that the things it's marking as equivalent can actually be found in sstate (basically, because sstate include the commit hash, hash equivalency kinda has to include it). > > I appreciate it if you reply with your thoughts; many thanks for > considering my request. > > What makes you *smile* today? > > Sincerely, Max Chichikalov >
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- Links: You receive all messages sent to this group. View/Reply Online (#185572): https://lists.openembedded.org/g/openembedded-core/message/185572 Mute This Topic: https://lists.openembedded.org/mt/100586415/21656 Group Owner: [email protected] Unsubscribe: https://lists.openembedded.org/g/openembedded-core/unsub [[email protected]] -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
