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 (#238390):
https://lists.openembedded.org/g/openembedded-core/message/238390
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]]
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
