[Refactoring] Build Script in terms of TC

[tiokim]

Signed-off-by: Taewan Kim t25.kim@samsung.com

Description

Refactor build.sh file in terms of TC in order to reduce LOC

• Remove PKG_LIST
• Use relative path to run TC
  Fixes [Refactoring] Build script #278

Type of change

• Code cleanup/refactoring
• This change requires a documentation update

How Has This Been Tested?

Run TC with ./build.sh file.

• $ ./build.sh test
• $ ./build.sh test ./internal/common/commandvalidator/

Test Configuration:

• Firmware version: Ubuntu 18.04
• Hardware: x86-64
• Edge Orchestration Release: Coconut

Checklist:

• My code follows the style guidelines of this project
• I have performed a self-review of my own code
• I have commented my code, particularly in hard-to-understand areas
• I have made corresponding changes to the documentation
• My changes generate no new warnings
• I have added tests that prove my fix is effective or that my feature works
• New and existing unit tests pass locally with my changes

[MoonkiHong]

This is great for improving visibility from the build script. LGTM.

[sonarcloud]

Kudos, SonarCloud Quality Gate passed!

0 Bugs
0 Vulnerabilities
0 Security Hotspots
0 Code Smells

No Coverage information
No Duplication information

[MoonkiHong]

+1! 😄

[suresh-lc]

Description can be little more for any third person to understand like why we do the change and how. Understand we are fixing an issue #278 . Later date when we check the PR, better description would be good and we need not to go to issue also.

[MoonkiHong]

Description can be little more for any third person to understand like why we do the change and how. Understand we are fixing an issue #278 . Later date when we check the PR, better description would be good and we need not to go to issue also.

Please see 65a801d. Seems it has an enough description in the commit message. Any issue from you?

[tiokim]

Description can be little more for any third person to understand like why we do the change and how. Understand we are fixing an issue #278 . Later date when we check the PR, better description would be good and we need not to go to issue also.

Thank you for the review!
I will write PR description more specifically from next time!

[suresh-lc]

Description can be little more for any third person to understand like why we do the change and how. Understand we are fixing an issue #278 . Later date when we check the PR, better description would be good and we need not to go to issue also.

Please see 65a801d. Seems it has an enough description in the commit message. Any issue from you?

Had checked the message. Why removal of PKG_LST can be little more explained is what I wanted to say. Was following : "We explain our solution and why we are doing what we are doing, as opposed to describing what we are doing."

[MoonkiHong]

Why removal of PKG_LST can be little more explained is what I wanted to say.

@suresh-lc It is well explained with the linked issue #278. Plus there is a description why need this commit (reduce of LoC). In addition to that, I would like to recommend you to also provide your rectified recommendation if you truly want an improved revision from contributors, otherwise, the discussion will go to a lot of chats and overheads.

[suresh-lc]

Why removal of PKG_LST can be little more explained is what I wanted to say.

@suresh-lc It is well explained with the linked issue #278. Plus there is a description why need this commit (reduce of LoC). In addition to that, I would like to recommend you to also provide your rectified recommendation if you truly want an improved revision from contributors, otherwise, the discussion will go to a lot of chats and overheads.

@MoonkiHong : thanks for your comments. Ya had mentioned that we are resolving the issue #278 . Since wanted to improve the contributions , had given the comment and not to just have chats, guess my intention was not rightly conveyed, sorry for that.

[suresh-lc]

Why removal of PKG_LST can be little more explained is what I wanted to say.

@suresh-lc It is well explained with the linked issue #278. Plus there is a description why need this commit (reduce of LoC). In addition to that, I would like to recommend you to also provide your rectified recommendation if you truly want an improved revision from contributors, otherwise, the discussion will go to a lot of chats and overheads.

@MoonkiHong : thanks for your comments. Ya had mentioned that we are resolving the issue #278 . Since wanted to improve the contributions , had given the comment and not to just have chats, guess my intention was not rightly conveyed, sorry for that.

The "reduce of LoC" has been added and it looks fine now. This gives why we are doing the change and hence it looks better.

[suresh-lc]

LGTM

[tiokim]

Description can be little more for any third person to understand like why we do the change and how. Understand we are fixing an issue #278 . Later date when we check the PR, better description would be good and we need not to go to issue also.

Please see 65a801d. Seems it has an enough description in the commit message. Any issue from you?

Had checked the message. Why removal of PKG_LST can be little more explained is what I wanted to say. Was following : "We explain our solution and why we are doing what we are doing, as opposed to describing what we are doing."

Why removal of PKG_LST can be little more explained is what I wanted to say.

@suresh-lc It is well explained with the linked issue #278. Plus there is a description why need this commit (reduce of LoC). In addition to that, I would like to recommend you to also provide your rectified recommendation if you truly want an improved revision from contributors, otherwise, the discussion will go to a lot of chats and overheads.

@MoonkiHong : thanks for your comments. Ya had mentioned that we are resolving the issue #278 . Since wanted to improve the contributions , had given the comment and not to just have chats, guess my intention was not rightly conveyed, sorry for that.

@suresh-lc Thank you for sharing your idea.
I thought PKG_LIST is not necessary because developers can run TC without PKG_LIST and maintaining PKG_LIST needs many efforts without worth (It only consumes LoC).
If someone needs the code, I can leave the code as is.
Please tell us without hesitation if you think we need to maintain some code!