From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:44153) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1fk1j3-0004rc-Rq for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Mon, 30 Jul 2018 02:32:14 -0400 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1fk1j0-0001pf-Lw for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Mon, 30 Jul 2018 02:32:13 -0400 Received: from mx3-rdu2.redhat.com ([66.187.233.73]:53158 helo=mx1.redhat.com) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.0:DHE_RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:32) (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1fk1j0-0001p7-Gy for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Mon, 30 Jul 2018 02:32:10 -0400 From: Markus Armbruster References: <20180727151359.29061-1-armbru@redhat.com> <20180727151359.29061-22-armbru@redhat.com> <55305ddb-0551-6296-c98a-c3af1228b2d5@redhat.com> <9244e265-82fe-42b4-330c-9005bde0a983@redhat.com> Date: Mon, 30 Jul 2018 08:32:08 +0200 In-Reply-To: <9244e265-82fe-42b4-330c-9005bde0a983@redhat.com> (Eric Blake's message of "Fri, 27 Jul 2018 12:03:25 -0500") Message-ID: <87in4x1bfb.fsf@dusky.pond.sub.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH v2 21/23] libqtest: Remove qtest_qmp_discard_response() & friends List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , To: Eric Blake Cc: thuth@redhat.com, qemu-devel@nongnu.org, f4bug@amsat.org Eric Blake writes: > On 07/27/2018 11:46 AM, Thomas Huth wrote: >> On 07/27/2018 05:13 PM, Markus Armbruster wrote: >>> qtest_qmp_discard_response(...) is shorthand for >>> qobject_unref(qtest_qmp(...), except it's not actually shorter. >> >> But the latter is IMHO harder to read. Doing things sloppily looks a bit uglier now. That's a feature. > Maybe, but then it lends itself well to: > > QObject *rsp = qtest_qmp(...); > qobject_unref(rsp); > > which is where you do insert tests for valid responses. > >> And it might be shorter in the compiled binary (one function call vs. two). I'd be quite sympathetic to this argument... > The size of the test binaries is not our biggest concern. ... outside tests/. >>> Moreover, the presence of these functions encourage sloppy testing. >> >> Shouldn't we then rather fix the tests to check for valid responses >> instead of replacing this function with harder-to-read code? I'd welcome such patches, but this series is already pretty long. > I think such fixes are now easier to make, but can be separate > followup patches. The mechanical conversion is fine to me.