On 2018-08-31 16:35, Markus Armbruster wrote: > Thomas Huth <th...@redhat.com> writes: > >> On 2018-08-31 15:24, Marc-André Lureau wrote: >>> Hi >>> On Fri, Aug 31, 2018 at 3:18 PM Thomas Huth <th...@redhat.com> wrote: >>>> >>>> On 2018-08-31 14:04, Markus Armbruster wrote: >>>>> Thomas Huth <th...@redhat.com> writes: >>>>> >>>>>> From: Marc-André Lureau <marcandre.lur...@redhat.com> >>>>>> >>>>>> 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 <marcandre.lur...@redhat.com> >>>>>> Reviewed-by: Thomas Huth <th...@redhat.com> >>>>>> Signed-off-by: Thomas Huth <th...@redhat.com> >>>>>> --- >>>>>> tests/qmp-test.c | 14 ++++++++++++++ >>>>>> 1 file changed, 14 insertions(+) >>>>>> >>>>>> diff --git a/tests/qmp-test.c b/tests/qmp-test.c >>>>>> index b347228..2b923f0 100644 >>>>>> --- a/tests/qmp-test.c >>>>>> +++ b/tests/qmp-test.c >>>>>> @@ -321,6 +321,19 @@ static void test_qmp_preconfig(void) >>>>>> qtest_quit(qs); >>>>>> } >>>>>> >>>>>> +static void test_qom_set_without_value(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); >>>>>> @@ -328,6 +341,7 @@ 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(); >>>>>> } >>>>> >>>>> I'm afraid you missed my objection to naming: >>>>> Message-ID: <8736uvujxx....@dusky.pond.sub.org> >>>>> https://lists.nongnu.org/archive/html/qemu-devel/2018-08/msg06368.html >>>> >>>> Sorry about that, I was not on CC: for that series. I used the patches >>>> from v5 where Marc-André put me on CC:. >>>> >>>>> If you could work that into PULL v2, I'd be obliged. If not, I'll have >>>>> to address it in a follow-up patch. >>>> >>>> IMHO the naming is not that bad ... OTOH, I think Peter might already be >>>> away? ... so we've got plenty of time to sort this out anyway. >>>> Marc-André, could you send a new version of the patch? >>> >>> Tbh, I don't care so much about the naming of the test, but (for once) >>> I respectfully don't think Markus suggestion is better. >>> >>> The function checks "qom-set" without 'value' argument: >>> "qom-set-without-value", no brainer.. > > Nope, that's not what it tests. It tests the visitor, the marshalling > code generator, and the QMP core handle a certain kind of invalid > arguments correctly. It does not test qom-set. I explained all that > already. > >>> Naming it "invalid-arg" is so generic that I wouldn't be able what it does. > > I can accept "missing-any" or "missing-any-arg". I object to any name > involving qom-set, because the test is not about qom-set at all. > > If it was, then putting it in qmp-test.c would be wrong. > >> Ok, then let's keep it this way. As I said, IMHO the current naming is >> not really bad, and I also don't have any suggestions for a perfect name >> right now. > > We don't need a perfect name. We need one that's not actively > misleading.
Ok, then let's cancel this PULL request. I'll send a new one after the "vacation freeze" (i.e. in three weeks), that should be enough time for both of you to come to an agreement about the best naming here. Thomas