Eric Blake <ebl...@redhat.com> writes: > On 04/13/2016 10:06 AM, Markus Armbruster wrote: >> Eric Blake <ebl...@redhat.com> writes: >> >>> Commit e8316d7 mistakenly passed consume=true >> >> in qmp_input_optional(), right? > > yes > >> >>> when checking if >>> an optional member was present, but the mistake was silently >>> ignored since the code happily let us extract a member more than >>> once. Tighten up the input visitor to ensure that a member is >>> consumed exactly once. > > [1] by fixing qmp_input_optional() to pass consume=false > >>> To keep the testsuite happy in the case >>> of incomplete input, we have to check whether a member exists >>> in the dictionary before trying to remove it. >> >> Sure this is only for the testsuite's benefit? > > The testsuite was the only client that failed under the tighter > semantics; but the better semantics allow later patches to further > improve the code while guaranteeing that clients remain sane.
Do we know that non-testsuite code can't fail for some input? >> >> You fix commit e8316d7's incorrect consume=true, don't you? Recommend >> to mention that explicitly. > > I thought I did, but I can add wording [1] along those lines.
