[Top][All Lists]

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

Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH v5 13/28] qapi: Add some expr tests

From: Markus Armbruster
Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH v5 13/28] qapi: Add some expr tests
Date: Fri, 27 Mar 2015 13:38:11 +0100
User-agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/24.3 (gnu/linux)

Eric Blake <address@hidden> writes:

> On 03/26/2015 09:55 AM, Markus Armbruster wrote:
>> Eric Blake <address@hidden> writes:
>>> Demonstrate that the qapi generator doesn't deal well with
>>> expressions that aren't up to par. Later patches will improve
>>> the expected results as the generator is made stricter.  Only
>>> one of the added tests actually behaves sanely at rejecting
>>> obvious problems.
>> qapi-code-gen.txt documents the naming conventions:
>>     Types, commands, and events share a common namespace.  Therefore,
>>     generally speaking, type definitions should always use CamelCase for
>>     user-defined type names, while built-in types are lowercase. Type
>>     definitions should not end in 'Kind', as this namespace is used for
>>     creating implicit C enums for visiting union types.  Command names,
>>     and field names within a type, should be all lower case with words
>>     separated by a hyphen.  However, some existing older commands and
>>     complex types use underscore; when extending such expressions,
>>     consistency is preferred over blindly avoiding underscore.  Event
>>     names should be ALL_CAPS with words separated by underscore.  The
>>     special string '**' appears for some commands that manually perform
>>     their own type checking rather than relying on the type-safe code
>>     produced by the qapi code generators.
>> We should either enforce the conventions consistently, or not at all.
>> Enforcing them makes certain kinds of name clashes in generated C
>> impossible.  If we don't enforce them, we should catch the clashes.
>> Since I haven't read to the end of your series, I have to ask: do you
>> intend to enforce them?
> I added tests to enforce it for event names, but did not enforce things
> for command names or complex type members.  I guess that can be added on
> top, if desired.
> So, did this patch get R-b?

I'd rather not enforce naming conventions just for events.

If we want to enforce them, let's do it consistently, and in a separate
series that includes this patch.  Okay?

reply via email to

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