Hi Stefan,
On 9/1/22 08:12, Stefan Herbrechtsmeier wrote:
Hi Quentin,
Am 31.08.2022 um 19:44 schrieb Simon Glass:
On Wed, 31 Aug 2022 at 09:55, Quentin Schulz foss+uboot@0leil.net wrote:
From: Quentin Schulz quentin.schulz@theobroma-systems.com
The binary is looked on the system by the suffix of the packer class. This means binman was looking for btool_gzip on the system and not gzip.
Are you sure? I test it and the name is already gzip because the bintool is requested as gzip. The find_bintool_class function only change the class name.
From current master: tools/binman/binman tool --list Name Version Description Path --------------- ----------- ------------------------- ------------------------------ btool_gzip - btool_gzip compression (not found)
With my patch: tools/binman/binman tool --list Name Version Description Path --------------- ----------- ------------------------- ------------------------------ gzip 1.11 gzip compression /usr/bin/gzip
Bintool.get_tool_list will return btool_gzip. Bintool.list_all will then iterate over all tools and call Bintool.create(name) for each.
Bintool.create will call Bintool.find_bintool_class with btool_gzip and it'll return the Bintoolbtool_gzip class. Then its constructor will be called, with btool_gzip passed as argument, here: https://source.denx.de/u-boot/u-boot/-/blob/master/tools/binman/bintool.py#L...
This is because Bintool.create has no knowledge of btool_gzip actually being gzip unlike Bintool.find_bintool_class.
Another way to handle this, and without user intervention would be to remove btool_ prefix when listing the supported tools since Bintool.find_bintool_class will actually handle the case where the prefix is missing.
It'd be something like: diff --git a/tools/binman/bintool.py b/tools/binman/bintool.py index ec30ceff74..433ee87c46 100644 --- a/tools/binman/bintool.py +++ b/tools/binman/bintool.py @@ -135,6 +135,7 @@ class Bintool: names = [os.path.splitext(os.path.basename(fname))[0] for fname in files] names = [name for name in names if name[0] != '_'] + names = [name[6:] if name.startswith('btool_') else name for name in names] if include_testing: names.append('_testing') return sorted(names)
Which also makes sure that the tools are actually alphabetically ordered (it is currently ordered with the "btool_" prefix).
Now I have to ask... Why not simplify all this and force all bintools to be prefixed with btool_ so we do not have to care about different scenarii?
Therefore, let's pass "gzip" as the name so that it can be found and used.
Fixes: 0f369d79925a ("binman: Add gzip bintool") Signed-off-by: Quentin Schulz quentin.schulz@theobroma-systems.com
tools/binman/btool/btool_gzip.py | 2 +- 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
Reviewed-by: Simon Glass sjg@chromium.org
Oops! I wonder how we could test this? One way would be to require those tools to be present and write a test that reads the version, I suppose.
We'd need each btool class to provide the name of the binary expected to exist on a given system. Then we could mock calls to os.path.isfile and os.access in patman.tool_find and check that the correct string is searched for. If we don't have a hardcoded value that the developer had to put there, automated tests won't help anyways since here we'd have looked for btool_gzip in one of the mocked calls and that would have succeeded unfortunately.
We already have a test for the compressions: testCompUtilVersions
If the tests are skipped because gzip is not found but is actually present, that is not great either.
I have nothing more interesting to offer though at the moment, I'm sorry.
Cheers, Quentin