12897 2018-08-23 20:37:29 +0000 Value out of range in progressbar code 2019-06-17 15:40:44 +0000 1 1 7 Build System, Metadata & Runtime BitBake bitbake 5.99 x86 Multiple RESOLVED WORKSFORME Medium normal Future 1 bluelightning richard.purdie poky.bs.watcher poky.watcher --- Regression (Used to work) No (bug/feature does not impact docs) oldest_to_newest 81423 0 bluelightning 2018-08-23 20:37:29 +0000 This morning I updated poky to the latest master (e54754a9ac4..bd374216048) and got the following error: -------------- snip -------------- bitbake -e blktool Parsing recipes: 100% |###################################################################################################################################################| Time: 0:00:30 Parsing of 1536 .bb files complete (0 cached, 1536 parsed). 2168 targets, 59 skipped, 0 masked, 0 errors. NOTE: Resolving any missing task queue dependencies Traceback (most recent call last):####################################################################################################################################### | ETA: 0:00:00 File "/home/paul/poky/poky/bitbake/lib/bb/ui/knotty.py", line 557, in main cacheprogress.update(event.current) File "/home/paul/poky/poky/bitbake/lib/progressbar/progressbar.py", line 254, in update raise ValueError('Value out of range') ValueError: Value out of range Loading cache: 100% |#####################################################################################################################################################| Time: 0:00:01 -------------- snip -------------- Unfortunately the traceback does not leave us much to go on. I have the following BBLAYERS value in case it helps: BBLAYERS += " \ /home/paul/poky/poky/meta \ /home/paul/poky/poky/meta-poky \ /home/paul/poky/poky/meta-yocto-bsp \ /home/paul/poky/poky/build/workspace \ /home/paul/oe/meta-openembedded/meta-oe \ /home/paul/oe/meta-openembedded/meta-multimedia \ " 84222 1 richard.purdie 2019-06-17 15:40:44 +0000 We haven't seen this again. Unless/until we do, close as there is nothing we can really do about it without a test case, the code looks right.