Re: [OE-core] [PATCH v2] license: Allow treating missing license as error

[Richard Purdie <richard.purdie@linuxfoundation.org>]

On Sun, 2021-10-10 at 18:20 +0100, Mike Crowe via lists.openembedded.org wrote:
> Use mechanism inspired by insane.bbclass to allow individual recipes or
> other configuration to determine whether a missing licence should be
> treated as a warning (as it is now) or as an error. This is controlled
> by whether the error class is in WARN_LICENSE or ERROR_LICENSE.
> 
> Use bb.fatal in the error case to ensure that the task really fails. If
> only bb.error is used then do_populate_lic isn't re-run on subsequent
> builds which could lead to the error being missed.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Mike Crowe <mac@mcrowe.com>
> ---
>  meta/classes/license.bbclass | 19 ++++++++++++++++++-
>  1 file changed, 18 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
> 
> diff --git a/meta/classes/license.bbclass b/meta/classes/license.bbclass
> index 45d912741d..f0a6c0c20e 100644
> --- a/meta/classes/license.bbclass
> +++ b/meta/classes/license.bbclass
> @@ -12,6 +12,23 @@ LICENSE_CREATE_PACKAGE ??= "0"
>  LICENSE_PACKAGE_SUFFIX ??= "-lic"
>  LICENSE_FILES_DIRECTORY ??= "${datadir}/licenses/"
>  
> +# Elect whether a given type of error is a warning or error, they may
> +# have been set by other files.
> +WARN_LICENSE ?= "no-license"
> +ERROR_LICENSE ?= ""
> +WARN_LICENSE[doc] = "Space-separated list of license problems that should be reported only as warnings"
> +ERROR_LICENSE[doc] = "Space-separated list of license problems that should be reported as errors"
> +
> +def package_license_handle_error(error_class, error_msg, d):
> +    if error_class in (d.getVar("ERROR_LICENSE") or "").split():
> +        package_qa_write_error(error_class, error_msg, d)
> +        bb.fatal("License Issue: %s [%s]" % (error_msg, error_class))
> +    elif error_class in (d.getVar("WARN_LICENSE") or "").split():
> +        package_qa_write_error(error_class, error_msg, d)
> +        bb.warn("License Issue: %s [%s]" % (error_msg, error_class))
> +    else:
> +        bb.note("License Issue: %s [%s]" % (error_msg, error_class))
> +
>  addtask populate_lic after do_patch before do_build
>  do_populate_lic[dirs] = "${LICSSTATEDIR}/${PN}"
>  do_populate_lic[cleandirs] = "${LICSSTATEDIR}"
> @@ -190,7 +207,7 @@ def find_license_files(d):
>              # Add explicity avoid of CLOSED license because this isn't generic
>              if license_type != 'CLOSED':
>                  # And here is where we warn people that their licenses are lousy
> -                bb.warn("%s: No generic license file exists for: %s in any provider" % (pn, license_type))
> +                package_license_handle_error("no-license", "%s: No generic license file exists for: %s in any provider" % (pn, license_type), d)
>              pass
>  
>      if not generic_directory:

I'm a little torn on this and whether we should make it use the same variables
as the other QA checks? Is there a reason the user would want to configure this
sanity check separately from the other sanity checks?

I'm not sure I can see a long list of different license checks we'd want to add
here?

The current sanity checks in insane.bbclass could do with some cleanup and
refactoring so perhaps this could be come a common function (and common variable
to control all the QA checks)?

Cheers,

Richard