On Tue, Jul 05, 2022 at 08:46:21AM -0700, Andrea Bolognani wrote: > On Fri, Jun 17, 2022 at 02:19:31PM +0200, Victor Toso wrote: > > +type EmptyCommandReturn struct { > > + CommandId string `json:"id,omitempty"` > > + Error *QapiError `json:"error,omitempty"` > > + Name string `json:"-"` > > +} > > Do we need a specific type for this? Can't we just generate an > appropriately-named type for each of the commands that don't return > any data? It's not like we would have to write that code manually :)
Yes, I think having an explicit named return struct even for commands not /currently/ returning data is good, and anticipates future changes that might add extra return data fields to the QAPI schema. > > > +func (r *EmptyCommandReturn) GetCommandName() string { > > + return r.Name > > +} > > Just like Event.GetName() and Command.GetName(), I'm not convinced we > should have this. > With regards, Daniel -- |: https://berrange.com -o- https://www.flickr.com/photos/dberrange :| |: https://libvirt.org -o- https://fstop138.berrange.com :| |: https://entangle-photo.org -o- https://www.instagram.com/dberrange :|