On 11/03/2015 09:43 AM, Markus Armbruster wrote: > Eric Blake <ebl...@redhat.com> writes: > >> Add positive tests to qapi-schema-test for things that were >> made possible by recent patches but which caused compile errors >> due to collisions prior to that point. >> >> This includes: >> Use of a member 'base' in a struct with a base class >> Use of a member name ending in 'Kind' or 'List' >> Use of a type name starting with 'has_' >> Use of a type named 'u' >> Use of a union branch name of 'u' >> Use of a union branch name starting with 'has_' >> Use of a union branch name of 'type' >> >> Signed-off-by: Eric Blake <ebl...@redhat.com> >> >> --- >> v8: new, but collects portions of subset B v10 patches 2, 3, and >> 16 and subset C v7 patch 6 that were deferred to later. >> >> It might be worth dropping or simplifying this patch, depending >> on how many corner cases we actually want to test. > > Let's go through your list: > > * Use of a member 'base' in a struct with a base class > > 'base' is no longer special, and testing it is as useful as testing > any other non-special member name. I'd drop it. Or am I missing > something?
Broken prior to commit ddf2190, and no reservation exists. I don't mind dropping it, especially since it quite distinct from the other grouping of collision testing. > > * Use of a member name ending in 'Kind' or 'List' > > These aren't special as member names, but they are reserved type > names. The test ensures we don't accidentally reserve them as member > names. Low probability * low damage = very low risk. But since you > wrote the test already, we can just as well keep it. > > * Use of a type name starting with 'has_' > * Use of a type named 'u' Never have been broken, but this adds insurance that we don't break it (and that our reservations added earlier aren't too greedy). > * Use of a union branch name of 'u' Broken prior to commit e4ba22b3; also proves that the reservation in 5359baf is not too greedy. > * Use of a union branch name starting with 'has_' Broken prior to commit e4ba22b3; also proves that the reservation in 9fb081e is not too greedy. > > Similarly: these are only reserved as member names, very low risk, but > why not keep the test. > > * Use of a union branch name of 'type' Broken prior to commit e4ba22b3. Doesn't have a reservation, so... > > As far as I know, 'type' isn't reserved anywhere, it's just the name > of a simple union's implicit tag member. Testing a tag value doesn't > clash with 'type' is as useful as testing any other non-variant member > name. I'd drop it. Or am I missing something? ...I could indeed drop this part of the test, on the same grounds as dropping the 'base' non-collision tests. > > Anything else being tested here? > I think that covers it. There's also one more positive test added in 10/17, when I rework the layout of alternate types (at that point, it is possible to have an alternate branch named 'max' because it no longer collides with a generated enum _MAX value). -- Eric Blake eblake redhat com +1-919-301-3266 Libvirt virtualization library http://libvirt.org
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
