qemu-devel
[Top][All Lists]
Advanced

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH v7 05/18] qapi: Test for various name collisions


From: Markus Armbruster
Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH v7 05/18] qapi: Test for various name collisions
Date: Thu, 01 Oct 2015 19:39:06 +0200
User-agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/24.5 (gnu/linux)

Eric Blake <address@hidden> writes:

> On 10/01/2015 09:34 AM, Markus Armbruster wrote:
>
>>>> Do we have a test for the simpler case of a struct inheriting from
>>>> itself?
>>>
>>> Not here, but in v5 16/46. That's because it asserts, but while it was
>>> easy to fix up in the QAPISchema.check(), I did not find it worth the
>>> churn to fix it up in the ad hoc parse code just to rip it back out
>>> later, and the QAPISchema.check() code requires several scaffolding
>>> patches (so it wasn't as easy as fixing the union 'type' clash asserts).
>>>  Tracking an assertion failure for any more than one patch at a time is
>>> horrible (as any other change to qapi.py changes line numbers that
>>> affect the assertion failure).
>> 
>> Well, I'm happy to take a test for inheritance loops, or leave it
>> uncovered for now, but I don't want to take a non-working test of an
>> unimplemented obscure case "union" without a test for the implemented
>> case "struct".
>> 
>> I can:
>> 
>> A. Drop this test case.
>> 
>> B. Replace it with the test case from 16/46.
>> 
>> C. Add the test case from 16/46 and keep this one.
>> 
>> I very much prefer B.  You?
>
> If we go with B, we'd have an assertion failure that does not get fixed
> by 6/18, and therefore is subject to churn until the fix is present.
>
> I'm leaning towards A (calling self-inheritance a name collision is a
> bit of a stretch in the first place; and leaving it untested until 16/46
> goes in doesn't hurt).

Okay, A. it is.  I pushed to branch qapi-next at
http://repo.or.cz/qemu/armbru.git



reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]