[Buildroot] [PATCH 3/4 v5] utils/test-pkg: add mode to only prepare .config files

[Yann E. MORIN]

Romain, Arnout, All,

On 2021-08-21 15:38 +0200, Romain Naour spake thusly:
> Le 05/08/2021 à 22:45, Arnout Vandecappelle a écrit :
> > On 28/06/2021 22:15, Yann E. MORIN wrote:
> >> Currently, running test-pkg is only done locally on the developpers
> >> machine.
> >>
> >> In a follow up commit, we'll add the possibility to run test-pkg in a
> >> gitlab-ci pipeline and, to speed up things, with one job per buildable
> >> configuration.
> >>
> >> As such, we will need that test-pkg only ever prepares the
> >> configuration, and that it does not build them.
> >>
> >> Add such a mode, with a new option, --prepare-only
> >>
> >> Signed-off-by: Yann E. MORIN <yann.morin.1998 at free.fr>
> >> Cc: Romain Naour <romain.naour at gmail.com>
> >> Cc: Thomas Petazzoni <thomas.petazzoni at bootlin.com>
> >> Cc: Arnout Vandecappelle (Essensium/Mind) <arnout at mind.be>
> >>
> >> ---
> >> Note: naming is hard; naming options is harder; naming options with a
> >> terse term is even harder; naming options with a terse term that is
> >> still meaningful and explains what the option does, is even harder yet.
> > 
> >  But doing it inconsistently is easy (see below). :-)
> > 
> >  Anyway, there's an easy solution to that (which I believe we should apply
> > here): don't define a terse option.

Ah, but there was a misunderstanding: I was refering to the "long
option" that I tried to keep terse. I.e. I started off with:
    --just-generate-config-for-later-use-in-gitlab-CI-or-anyother-such-CI

and eventually tried to shorten it as much as possible, while still
keeping the meaning, so I ended up with just:
    --prepare-only

As for the short, one-char option, indeed., we don't really need one.

> >  I think terse options should only be defined for stuff that a human has to
> > type. In scripts, terse options shouldn't be used, because it makes it harder
> > for the programmer to understand what the command does.
> > 
> >  Since prepare-only is meant ot be used by script, I don't think a terse option
> > is needed.
> Thanks for your advice. Indeed I don't think we need a terse option.

We need a terse "long option", but we don;t need a one-char "short
option". ;-)

Yes, this is confusing... ;-)

> >> +        (-l|--prepare-only)
> >              ^ ... but this is an 'l'!
> >  Clearly someone didn't test with the terse option. :-)

Yes, I did test with terse "long option", but not with the one-char
"short option". Indeed. ;-]

Regards,
Yann E. MORIN.

-- 
.-----------------.--------------------.------------------.--------------------.
|  Yann E. MORIN  | Real-Time Embedded | /"\ ASCII RIBBON | Erics' conspiracy: |
| +33 662 376 056 | Software  Designer | \ / CAMPAIGN     |  ___               |
| +33 561 099 427 `------------.-------:  X  AGAINST      |  \e/  There is no  |
| http://ymorin.is-a-geek.org/ | _/*\_ | / \ HTML MAIL    |   v   conspiracy.  |
'------------------------------^-------^------------------^--------------------'