[cip-dev] [cip-kernel-sec] report_affected: report cip branches

[cip-dev] [cip-kernel-sec] report_affected: report cip branches

[Daniel Sangorrin]

Allow reporting on cip branches, instead of returning an
error like this one:

$ ./scripts/report_affected.py linux-4.4.y-cip
Traceback (most recent call last):
  File "./scripts/report_affected.py", line 105, in <module>
    args.only_fixed_upstream, args.include_ignored, *args.branches)
  File "./scripts/report_affected.py", line 33, in main
    branches.sort(key=kernel_sec.branch.get_sort_key)
  File "./scripts/kernel_sec/branch.py", line 146, in get_sort_key
    base_ver = branch['base_ver']
TypeError: 'NoneType' object is not subscriptable

Signed-off-by: Daniel Sangorrin <daniel.sangorrin@toshiba.co.jp>
---
 scripts/kernel_sec/branch.py | 19 +++++++++++++++++--
 1 file changed, 17 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)

diff --git a/scripts/kernel_sec/branch.py b/scripts/kernel_sec/branch.py
index fb8785c..828de13 100644
--- a/scripts/kernel_sec/branch.py
+++ b/scripts/kernel_sec/branch.py
@@ -22,6 +22,7 @@ from . import version
 
 
 _STABLE_BRANCH_RE = re.compile(r'^linux-([\d.]+)\.y$')
+_CIP_BRANCH_RE = re.compile(r'^linux-([\d.]+)\.y-cip$')
 
 
 def get_base_ver_stable_branch(base_ver):
@@ -34,9 +35,23 @@ def get_base_ver_stable_branch(base_ver):
         }
 
 
+def get_base_ver_cip_branch(base_ver):
+    branch_name = 'linux-%s.y-cip' % base_ver
+    return {
+        'short_name': branch_name,
+        'git_remote': 'cip',
+        'git_name': branch_name,
+        'base_ver': base_ver
+        }
+
+
 def get_stable_branch(branch_name):
-    match = _STABLE_BRANCH_RE.match(branch_name)
-    return match and get_base_ver_stable_branch(match.group(1))
+    if 'cip' in branch_name:
+        match = _CIP_BRANCH_RE.match(branch_name)
+        return match and get_base_ver_cip_branch(match.group(1))
+    else:
+        match = _STABLE_BRANCH_RE.match(branch_name)
+        return match and get_base_ver_stable_branch(match.group(1))
 
 
 def _extract_live_stable_branches(doc):
-- 
2.17.1

[cip-dev] [cip-kernel-sec] report_affected: report cip branches

[Ben Hutchings]

On Thu, 2019-06-20 at 15:13 +0900, Daniel Sangorrin wrote:
> Allow reporting on cip branches, instead of returning an
> error like this one:
[...]
> ?def get_stable_branch(branch_name):
> -????match = _STABLE_BRANCH_RE.match(branch_name)
> -????return match and get_base_ver_stable_branch(match.group(1))
> +????if 'cip' in branch_name:
> +????????match = _CIP_BRANCH_RE.match(branch_name)
> +????????return match and get_base_ver_cip_branch(match.group(1))
> +????else:
> +????????match = _STABLE_BRANCH_RE.match(branch_name)
> +????????return match and get_base_ver_stable_branch(match.group(1))
[...]

Does this function actually need to know anything about specific branch
names?  It seems like we should be able to implement it as something
like:

    for branch in?get_live_branches():
        if branch['short_name'] == branch_name:
            return branch
    return None

Ben.

-- 
Ben Hutchings, Software Developer                ?        Codethink Ltd
https://www.codethink.co.uk/                 Dale House, 35 Dale Street
                                     Manchester, M1 2HF, United Kingdom

[cip-dev] [cip-kernel-sec] report_affected: report cip branches

[Ben Hutchings]

On Thu, 2019-06-20 at 20:51 +0100, Ben Hutchings wrote:
> On Thu, 2019-06-20 at 15:13 +0900, Daniel Sangorrin wrote:
> > Allow reporting on cip branches, instead of returning an
> > error like this one:
> 
> [...]
> > ?def get_stable_branch(branch_name):
> > -????match = _STABLE_BRANCH_RE.match(branch_name)
> > -????return match and get_base_ver_stable_branch(match.group(1))
> > +????if 'cip' in branch_name:
> > +????????match = _CIP_BRANCH_RE.match(branch_name)
> > +????????return match and get_base_ver_cip_branch(match.group(1))
> > +????else:
> > +????????match = _STABLE_BRANCH_RE.match(branch_name)
> > +????????return match and get_base_ver_stable_branch(match.group(1))
> 
> [...]
> 
> Does this function actually need to know anything about specific branch
> names???It seems like we should be able to implement it as something
> like:
> 
> ????for branch in?get_live_branches():
> ????????if branch['short_name'] == branch_name:
> ????????????return branch
> ????return None

In fact it would probably make more sense to get rid of this function
altogether and put that code in reported_affected.py, which can avoid
calling get_live_branches() multiple times.

Ben.

-- 
Ben Hutchings, Software Developer                ?        Codethink Ltd
https://www.codethink.co.uk/                 Dale House, 35 Dale Street
                                     Manchester, M1 2HF, United Kingdom