qemu-devel
[Top][All Lists]
Advanced

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

Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH] tests: add qmp/missing-any-arg test


From: Markus Armbruster
Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH] tests: add qmp/missing-any-arg test
Date: Wed, 31 Oct 2018 16:21:03 +0100
User-agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/26.1 (gnu/linux)

Marc-André Lureau <address@hidden> writes:

> test_qmp_missing_any_arg() is about a bug in infrastructure used by
> the QMP core, fixed in commit c489780203.  We covered the bug in
> infrastructure unit tests (commit bce3035a44).  I wrote that test
> earlier, to cover QMP level as well, the test could go into qmp-test.

The last sentence is confusing.  What about replacing it by "Let's test
it at the QMP level as well"?

> Signed-off-by: Marc-André Lureau <address@hidden>
> Reviewed-by: Thomas Huth <address@hidden>
> Signed-off-by: Thomas Huth <address@hidden>
> ---
>  tests/qmp-test.c | 14 ++++++++++++++
>  1 file changed, 14 insertions(+)
>
> diff --git a/tests/qmp-test.c b/tests/qmp-test.c
> index 6c419f6023..7517be4654 100644
> --- a/tests/qmp-test.c
> +++ b/tests/qmp-test.c
> @@ -318,6 +318,19 @@ static void test_qmp_preconfig(void)
>      qtest_quit(qs);
>  }
>  
> +static void test_qmp_missing_any_arg(void)
> +{
> +    QTestState *qts;
> +    QDict *resp;
> +
> +    qts = qtest_init(common_args);
> +    resp = qtest_qmp(qts, "{'execute': 'qom-set', 'arguments':"
> +                     " { 'path': '/machine', 'property': 'rtc-time' } }");
> +    g_assert_nonnull(resp);
> +    qmp_assert_error_class(resp, "GenericError");
> +    qtest_quit(qts);
> +}
> +
>  int main(int argc, char *argv[])
>  {
>      g_test_init(&argc, &argv, NULL);
> @@ -325,6 +338,7 @@ int main(int argc, char *argv[])
>      qtest_add_func("qmp/protocol", test_qmp_protocol);
>      qtest_add_func("qmp/oob", test_qmp_oob);
>      qtest_add_func("qmp/preconfig", test_qmp_preconfig);
> +    qtest_add_func("qmp/missing-any-arg", test_qmp_missing_any_arg);
>  
>      return g_test_run();
>  }

Patch looks good to me.



reply via email to

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