Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH v4 07/10] tests: add qmp/qom-set-without-value test

[Marc-André Lureau]

Hi

On Thu, Aug 30, 2018 at 3:05 PM, Markus Armbruster <address@hidden> wrote:
> Marc-André Lureau <address@hidden> writes:
>
>> test_qom_set_without_value() 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.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Marc-André Lureau <address@hidden>
>> ---
>>  tests/qmp-test.c | 18 ++++++++++++++++++
>>  1 file changed, 18 insertions(+)
>>
>> diff --git a/tests/qmp-test.c b/tests/qmp-test.c
>> index 4ae2245484..fdfe73b6d2 100644
>> --- a/tests/qmp-test.c
>> +++ b/tests/qmp-test.c
>> @@ -348,6 +348,23 @@ static void test_qmp_preconfig(void)
>>      qtest_quit(qs);
>>  }
>>
>> +static void test_qom_set_without_value(void)
>> +{
>> +    QTestState *qts;
>> +    QDict *ret;
>> +
>> +    qts = qtest_init(common_args);
>> +
>> +    ret = qtest_qmp(qts, "{'execute': 'qom-set', 'arguments':"
>> +                    " { 'path': '/machine', 'property': 'rtc-time' } }");
>> +    g_assert_nonnull(ret);
>> +
>> +    g_assert_cmpstr(get_error_class(ret), ==, "GenericError");
>> +
>> +    qobject_unref(ret);
>> +    qtest_quit(qts);
>> +}
>> +
>>  int main(int argc, char *argv[])
>>  {
>>      g_test_init(&argc, &argv, NULL);
>> @@ -355,6 +372,7 @@ 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/qom-set-without-value", test_qom_set_without_value);
>>
>>      return g_test_run();
>>  }
>
> What we're testing here is a missing 'any' parameter.  The test should
> be named accordingly.  Perhaps:
>
>        qtest_add_func("qmp/missing-any", test_missing_any);
>
> I can't bring myself to care for this test.  There are countless ways to
> run a command with invalid parameters, and this is just one.  The only
> thing that sets it apart is it used to tickle a visitor bug we've long
> fixed, complete with a unit test to prevent regressions.  But the cost
> of carrying the test is pretty low, so if you really want it, then
> taking it without further argument is probably cheaper even if it's as
> redundant as I suspect it is.

Yes, I would rather have it than drop it. It covers the QMP level as well.