Added SPDX identifiers to all .py files except those in migrations directory.
Fixes: [YOCTO #13527]
Signed-off-by: Meh Mbeh Ida Delphine <idadelm@gmail.com>
Signed-off-by: Paul Eggleton <bluelightning@bluelightning.org>
Recipes come and go over time, so when a recipe gets deleted the history
for it goes away, which means that if you look back in time you do not
see an accurate picture - you only see the subset of recipes that are
currently present. Introduce an indirection between recipes and history
that allows for old recipes to persist (mostly in name only).
Signed-off-by: Paul Eggleton <paul.eggleton@linux.intel.com>
It's best practice for security reasons to use shell=False and pass
command line arguments as a list; it also avoids some pain with
escaping, so let's use it everywhere we can (in fact we're only left
with one place in layerindex/tasks.py where we now pass shell=True).
Signed-off-by: Paul Eggleton <paul.eggleton@linux.intel.com>
The revision that happens to be checked out at the moment could be
anything and might not actually have a maintainers.inc, so check out the
proper branch before looking for it.
Signed-off-by: Paul Eggleton <paul.eggleton@linux.intel.com>
Best practices state that you should use a mechanism that ensures files
get closed in case of any error, so let's do that.
Signed-off-by: Paul Eggleton <paul.eggleton@linux.intel.com>
Most layers do not track maintenance on a per-recipe basis, and for
those layers we will hide some of the per-recipe maintainer features
and on the recipe detail show the layer maintainer(s) as the
maintainer(s) of the recipe.
Signed-off-by: Paul Eggleton <paul.eggleton@linux.intel.com>
RecipeUpstreamHistory was not linked to the layer it was produced from,
which meant that it wasn't easy to query for a different maintenance
plan (i.e. a different layer) and thus the maintenance plan selection
on the recipe list didn't really work. Add a link field, populate it in
a migration and then make it required.
We had added a link earlier from RecipeMaintainerHistory to LayerBranch
but it was optional; for the same reasons we now populate it and make it
required.
Signed-off-by: Paul Eggleton <paul.eggleton@linux.intel.com>
Add an option to specify which maintenance plan to operate on (largely
for debugging purposes).
Signed-off-by: Paul Eggleton <paul.eggleton@linux.intel.com>
Provide a mechanism set the maintainer for things like gcc-cross-<arch>
to the same as gcc. (We do have entries in the .inc file for these,
however they aren't useful as they don't match the recipe name when we
parse it, and due to the fact that RecipeMaintainer objects link
directly to Recipe objects, we can't handle entries that don't map to a
real recipe).
Signed-off-by: Paul Eggleton <paul.eggleton@linux.intel.com>
We don't actually need to check out the repository until we actually
analyse a commit, so avoid doing so. Additionally, there's not much
point in checking out master at the end, let the next script invocation
do that if needed (if it needs to, it should since otherwise there's no
guarantee what state the repository is in).
Signed-off-by: Paul Eggleton <paul.eggleton@linux.intel.com>
Add an option that deletes all maintainer history records for the
current layer branch so that they can then be reloaded from scratch.
Signed-off-by: Paul Eggleton <paul.eggleton@linux.intel.com>
We check out different revisions while we do this processing, and so
does the layer index update script, so we shouldn't be allowing both to
run at once or nasty stuff will happen.
Signed-off-by: Paul Eggleton <paul.eggleton@linux.intel.com>
Instead of hardcoded references to the poky repository, look for any
maintainers.inc file in layers associated with the layerbranches for all
enabled maintenance plans. At present few layers have this file, but at
least it will now work generically in any layer index instance.
Signed-off-by: Paul Eggleton <paul.eggleton@linux.intel.com>
We don't need to create branches here, and we don't need to actually
check anything out unless we're going to parse, so we can save a bit of
time by not doing so.
Signed-off-by: Paul Eggleton <paul.eggleton@linux.intel.com>
Add the ability to run the scripts without writing changes back to the
database, for debugging purposes.
Signed-off-by: Paul Eggleton <paul.eggleton@linux.intel.com>
Django 1.6 provides a context manager for atomic transactions so
update the way for make db transactions.
Signed-off-by: Aníbal Limón <anibal.limon@linux.intel.com>
When add new recipes sometimes don't have maintainer defined causing
errors on frontend when search for one.
Signed-off-by: Aníbal Limón <anibal.limon@linux.intel.com>
