'ebegin' without 'eend' doesn't make much sense and will lead to confusing output in the build log. We should have an eqawarn for such instances. Relevant snippet from #gentoo-qa: """ [14:32:38] <@sam_> ulm: two questions about ebegin/eend [14:32:45] <@sam_> ulm: is it valid to call eend without ebegin? [14:32:51] <@sam_> ulm: ... and the opposite (ebegin without eend)? :) [14:33:01] <@sam_> ulm: i've read pms already obviously but i just want to double check [14:33:24] <@sam_> we have some cases in tree of e.g. einfo/eend! [14:53:06] <@ulm> eend Indicates that the process begun with an ebegin message has completed. [14:53:29] <@ulm> sam_: obviously it is intended to be called after ebegin [14:53:59] <@ulm> but I think it won't error out if it isn't [14:55:35] <@ulm> I'd rather not make that incorrect usage an error [14:56:15] <@ulm> only thing that can happen is bad formatting of the output, which isn't a good reason to abort the build process [14:56:41] <@ulm> sam_: maybe portage should output a qa warning [16:12:25] <@sam_> ulm: what about the opposite? [16:12:30] <@sam_> same? just add a warning? [16:33:38] <@ulm> yeah, warning too """
The bug has been closed via the following commit(s): https://gitweb.gentoo.org/proj/portage.git/commit/?id=3994939f982f22afbc7aaf3b8eca6680ad85c617 commit 3994939f982f22afbc7aaf3b8eca6680ad85c617 Author: Thomas Bracht Laumann Jespersen <t@laumann.xyz> AuthorDate: 2022-04-12 08:59:11 +0000 Commit: Sam James <sam@gentoo.org> CommitDate: 2022-04-15 04:47:35 +0000 ebegin: Output QA warning if call to eend is missing The idea here is to check if EBEGIN_EEND is set after the phase has been executed. If so, then a call to eend is probably missing. This is under the assumption that ebegin-eend invocations should be properly paired within the same phase. In ebegin, the EBEGIN_EEND variable is also checked, and, if set, indicates that ebegin has been called and is missing the closing call to eend. I doubt that this check is perfect, but it seems to work in what little testing I've done. Closes: https://bugs.gentoo.org/835823 Signed-off-by: Thomas Bracht Laumann Jespersen <t@laumann.xyz> Closes: https://github.com/gentoo/portage/pull/811 Signed-off-by: Sam James <sam@gentoo.org> bin/isolated-functions.sh | 3 +++ bin/phase-functions.sh | 4 ++++ 2 files changed, 7 insertions(+)
The bug has been referenced in the following commit(s): https://gitweb.gentoo.org/repo/gentoo.git/commit/?id=bb044a3dd58f5d6ac0fa66dfe07daf3c6773480e commit bb044a3dd58f5d6ac0fa66dfe07daf3c6773480e Author: Sam James <sam@gentoo.org> AuthorDate: 2022-04-15 08:35:57 +0000 Commit: Sam James <sam@gentoo.org> CommitDate: 2022-04-15 08:36:54 +0000 sys-apps/portage: backport new QA checks; /run warning removal portage.git is currently undergoing a fair bit of refactoring and other non-trivial changes, so let's backport some useful bits. - Backport QA checks (eend w/o ebegin, ebegin w/o eend, /var/tmp install dir) - Drop obsolete /run-not-mounted warning Bug: https://bugs.gentoo.org/835824 Bug: https://bugs.gentoo.org/835823 Bug: https://bugs.gentoo.org/832853 Bug: https://bugs.gentoo.org/493154 Bug: https://bugs.gentoo.org/837536 Signed-off-by: Sam James <sam@gentoo.org> sys-apps/portage/files/3.0.30-qa-checks.patch | 137 ++++++++++ .../portage/files/3.0.30-revert-run-warn.patch | 64 +++++ sys-apps/portage/portage-3.0.30-r2.ebuild | 276 +++++++++++++++++++++ 3 files changed, 477 insertions(+)
