-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 2k
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
make: handle blacklisted features separately from missing requirements #12453
Conversation
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Thanks a lot for addressing this @aabadie. Some minor naming comment's,
I also think it would be good to have a variable that aggregates FEATURES_BLACKLISTED
and FEATURES_MISSING
, something like FEATURES_REQUIREMENTS_MISSING
Makefile.features
Outdated
# "!<feature>" ("not feature") | ||
_features_used_blacklisted = $(addprefix !,$(sort $(filter $(FEATURES_USED), $(FEATURES_BLACKLIST)))) | ||
# Features that are used by the application but blacklisted by the BSP. | ||
# Having blacklisted features may case the build to fail. |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
# Having blacklisted features may case the build to fail. | |
# Having blacklisted features may cause the build to fail. |
Makefile.features
Outdated
_features_used_blacklisted = $(addprefix !,$(sort $(filter $(FEATURES_USED), $(FEATURES_BLACKLIST)))) | ||
# Features that are used by the application but blacklisted by the BSP. | ||
# Having blacklisted features may case the build to fail. | ||
FEATURES_BLACKLISTED = $(sort $(filter $(FEATURES_USED), $(FEATURES_BLACKLIST))) |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
This should be FEATURES_USED_BLACKLISTED
I don't think so. We will go back to the double negation crappy thing that this PR is trying to avoid. |
True! |
May I squash ? |
The double negation is no longer present, can you also add
Otherwise I ran the following testing procedure after rebasing on master.
If you agree with my change suggestion squash immediatly. |
bae08ed
to
f55a16f
Compare
f55a16f
to
ba0eb79
Compare
Done |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
ACK, lets see what murdock says.
Murdock agrees |
Contribution description
This PR addresses the several comments (#9081 (comment), #9081 (comment)) made in #9081 but kept unadressed about moving the management of blacklisted features in a dedicated variable.
The current behavior is to say a blacklisted features used is a missing non blacklisted requirements. This is far from obvious.
We can discuss on the name of the new variable introduced by this PR. But at least the error message displayed when one wants to use a blacklisted feature in an application is much more easy to understand.
Testing procedure
make info-board-supported
should not differ from masterIssues/PRs references
Cleanup of #9081