Re: [PATCH] utils: Ensure shell function failure in python logging is correct

[Florian Bezdeka <florian.bezdeka@siemens.com>]

On 26.05.22 11:47, Anton Mikanovich wrote:
> If a python function exec_func() calls a shell task, the logging wasn't working
> correctly in all cases since the exception was turned into a BBHandledException()
> and the logfile piece was lost which is handled at the top task level.
> 
> The easiest way to avoid this is to allow the ExecutionError exceptions to
> be raised to a higher level, we don't need the traceback for them.

Upstream first? Why can't we ask bitbake guys to do the backport and
lift our bitbake version afterwards? Is that already ongoing?

> 
> Backported from Bitbake 2.0 upstream branch:
> https://git.openembedded.org/bitbake/commit/?id=7cae11f558f9ff5fd05ef23b789aaef92fb5a327
> 
> Signed-off-by: Anton Mikanovich <amikan@ilbers.de>
> ---
>  bitbake/lib/bb/utils.py | 2 +-
>  1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
> 
> diff --git a/bitbake/lib/bb/utils.py b/bitbake/lib/bb/utils.py
> index 2a150fe..74cbc69 100644
> --- a/bitbake/lib/bb/utils.py
> +++ b/bitbake/lib/bb/utils.py
> @@ -401,7 +401,7 @@ def better_exec(code, context, text = None, realfile = "<code>", pythonexception
>          code = better_compile(code, realfile, realfile)
>      try:
>          exec(code, get_context(), context)
> -    except (bb.BBHandledException, bb.parse.SkipRecipe, bb.data_smart.ExpansionError):
> +    except (bb.BBHandledException, bb.parse.SkipRecipe, bb.data_smart.ExpansionError, bb.process.ExecutionError):
>          # Error already shown so passthrough, no need for traceback
>          raise
>      except Exception as e: