Some build configurations do not configure boot jars. In those cases
the boot jars package check fails so should be skipped.
Bug: 177892522
Test: m nothing
lunch fvp_mini && m
Change-Id: I5498a8f5cdfb2fabf5223e94dfcee0e853059d01
This replicates the previous behavior when the boot jars package check
was performed by a singleton. When the singleton was removed and the
check was performed by the platform-bootclasspath the logic to exclude
jacocoagent from the list was lost. This change replaces it.
Bug: 191377804
Test: m EMMA_INSTRUMENT=true EMMA_INSTRUMENT_FRAMEWORK=true check-boot-jars
- fails without this change passes with this change.
Change-Id: If9eae254045bef9a0c0963213721fc12a9f463cb
Bug: 177892522
Bug: 189298093
Test: m check-boot-jars
m SOONG_CONFIG_art_module_source_build=false check-boot-jars
- Ran both commands with and without java.lang in the
package_allowed_list.txt
Change-Id: Iba1a881c8f6b6919d5c0c0520eb3073658f3b8d2
Consider this case:
apex {
name: "com.android.foo",
native_libs: ["foo"],
}
override_apex {
name: "com.mycompany.android.foo",
base: "com.android.foo",
}
cc_library {
name: "foo",
}
There are two APEXes defined: "com.android.foo" and
"com.mycompany.android.foo" which is a copy of "com.android.foo" with
some properties overridden (e.g. signing keys).
The module "foo" is mutated into two variants by the apex mutator: the
platform variant and the apex variant. The former has the variation name
"" and the later has "apex<min_api_ver>" which usually is "apex10000".
Internally, the apex variant has an alias "com.android.foo".
ApexInfo.InApexVariants() returns only "com.android.foo" when called for
the module "foo".
We can see that the information that "foo" is also part of
"com.mycompany.android.foo" is completely lost. This is causing problem
when we compare the apex membership by their "soong module name", not
the "apex name". In the example above, the two modules have different
soone module names, but have the same apex name: "com.android.foo".
To fix that, this CL introduces a new field `InApexes` to the `ApexInfo`
struct. It has the actual name of the APEXes that the module is part of.
With the example above, `InApexes` is ["com.android.foo",
"com.mycompany.android.foo"].
Bug: 180325915
Test: m nothing
Test: m nothing on non-AOSP targets with ag/13740887 applied.
Change-Id: I4e7a7ac5495d2e622ba92a4358ed967e066c6c2e
.. in preparation for the upcoming change. This change doesn't alter any
behavior.
InApexes is a misleading name. People expects that it has the list of
soong module names of the APEXes that a module is part of. So, for
example, `core-oj` is a part of both `com.android.art` and
`com.google.android.art`. However, in reality, that's not true. The
field has `com.android.art` only. This is because the two APEXes
(android and Google) have the same apex name which is `com.android.art`.
That apex name is used in various places like the `apex_available` and
allows us to keep using the same name regardless of whether the APEX is
overridden or not.
However, this is causing problems in some cases where the exact list of
soong module names is required. The upcoming change will add a new field
to handle the case and the new field actually will get the name
'InApexes'. So, the existing field is renamed to a less misleading name
`InApexVariants`.
Bug: 180325915
Test: m nothing
Change-Id: I0c73361b452eddb812acd5ebef5dcedaab382436
are present.
1) The boot jar to APEX mapping is maintained by the base names for
both of them. When building with prebuilt modules and APEXes, that
means we need to take care to compare them without regard to any
"prebuilt_" prefixes.
2) VisitAllModules can visit disabled modules and both source and
prebuilt modules, so they need some conditions to skip modules that
aren't applicable for boot jars.
Test: `m droid`
Test: `m droid SOONG_CONFIG_art_module_source_build=false`
with fresh ART Module prebuilts in place
Bug: 171061220
Change-Id: Iced269d29127bc8b8f9b3171adb60a97d115628b
Enable the RuleBuilder and RuleBuilderCommand methods to access
the BuilderContext by passing it to NewRuleBuilder instead of
RuleBuilder.Build.
Test: genrule_test.go
Test: rule_builder_test.go
Test: m checkbuild
Change-Id: I63e6597e19167393876dc2259d6f521363b7dabc
The switch to use dex jars instead of class jars means that a boot jar
that is defined by a dex_import module will now be checked against the
package_allowed_list.txt so it is possible that it will detect
previously unreported problems.
Test: m check-boot-jars - for failing and passing cases
Bug: 171479578
Bug: 125517186
Change-Id: Ie614898dade0fb43c9418d7afb9138169db6f097
Adds a singleton that traverses the module variants finding the ones
that are in the list (updatable and non-updatable) of boot jars and
add a ninja rule to ensure that they only contain packages from an
allowed list.
Replaces a hack that ignored any prebuilt boot jars supplied as dex
file with an equivalent one to ensure that they are still ignored.
A follow up change that switches to checking dex jars will allow the
hack to be removed.
The boot jars check can be strict or lax. If strict then all the boot
jars listed in the configuration must be found, otherwise it will only
check the ones it finds. It is strict by default unless
TARGET_BUILD_UNBUNDLED=true or ALLOW_MISSING_DEPENDENCIES=true.
Moves the script and data file from build/make.
Test: m check-boot-jars - for failing and passing cases
SKIP_BOOT_JARS_CHECK=true - no check-boot-jars target created
ALLOW_MISSING_DEPENDENCIES=true - not strict
TARGET_BUILD_UNBUNDLED=true - not strict
verified manually that apart from path differences the same
files (same check sum) were checked in both old make checks and
the new Soong ones
EMMA_INSTRUMENT=true EMMA_INSTRUMENT_FRAMEWORK=true m check-boot-jars
Bug: 171479578
Change-Id: I9d81d6650ba64fc0d48d2dab4ba5a3ba8dd03dec
