Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH 09/12] tests: add a few qemu-qmp tests

[Markus Armbruster <armbru@redhat.com>]

Marc-André Lureau <marcandre.lureau@redhat.com> writes:

> These 2 tests exhibited two qmp bugs that were fixed in 2.7
> (series from commit e64c75a9752c5d0fd64eb2e684c656a5ea7d03c6 to
> commit 1382d4abdf9619985e4078e37e49e487cea9935e)
>
> Signed-off-by: Marc-André Lureau <marcandre.lureau@redhat.com>
> ---
>  tests/qmp-test.c | 38 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>  1 file changed, 38 insertions(+)
>
> diff --git a/tests/qmp-test.c b/tests/qmp-test.c
> index ceaf4a6789..084c5edff0 100644
> --- a/tests/qmp-test.c
> +++ b/tests/qmp-test.c
> @@ -249,7 +249,39 @@ static void test_qmp_oob(void)
>      recv_cmd_id(qts, "blocks-2");
>      recv_cmd_id(qts, "err-2");
>      cleanup_blocking_cmd();
> +}
> +
> +static void test_object_add_without_props(void)
> +{
> +    QTestState *qts;
> +    QDict *ret;
> +
> +    qts = qtest_init(common_args);
> +
> +    ret = qtest_qmp(qts, "{'execute': 'object-add',"
> +          " 'arguments': { 'qom-type': 'memory-backend-ram', 'id': 'ram1' } }");

Please break lines between arguments instead of within.  More of the
same below.

> +    g_assert_nonnull(ret);
> +
> +    g_assert_cmpstr(get_error_class(ret), ==, "GenericError");
> +
> +    qobject_unref(ret);
> +    qtest_quit(qts);
> +}
> +
> +static void test_qom_set_without_value(void)
> +{
> +    QTestState *qts;
> +    QDict *ret;
> +
> +    qts = qtest_init(common_args);
>  
> +    ret = qtest_qmp(qts, "{'execute': 'qom-set',"
> +              " 'arguments': { 'path': '/machine', 'property': 'rtc-time' } }");
> +    g_assert_nonnull(ret);
> +
> +    g_assert_cmpstr(get_error_class(ret), ==, "GenericError");
> +
> +    qobject_unref(ret);
>      qtest_quit(qts);
>  }
>  
> @@ -479,8 +511,13 @@ int main(int argc, char *argv[])
>  
>      g_test_init(&argc, &argv, NULL);
>  
> +    qtest_add_func("qmp/object-add-without-props",
> +                   test_object_add_without_props);
> +    qtest_add_func("qmp/qom-set-without-value",
> +                   test_qom_set_without_value);
>      qtest_add_func("qmp/protocol", test_qmp_protocol);
>      qtest_add_func("qmp/oob", test_qmp_oob);
> +
>      qmp_schema_init(&schema);
>      add_query_tests(&schema);
>      qtest_add_func("qmp/preconfig", test_qmp_preconfig);
> @@ -488,5 +525,6 @@ int main(int argc, char *argv[])
>      ret = g_test_run();
>  
>      qmp_schema_cleanup(&schema);
> +
>      return ret;
>  }

Is this hunk intentional?

Taking a step back: the test cases look good, but is this file an
appropriate home?  The file comment states it's about "QMP protocol test
cases".  These test cases test commands, not the protocol.

I figure test_qom_set_without_value() belongs to qom-test.c.

test_object_add_without_props() could go into a memory backend test
collection, or an object-add test collection.  Sadly, neither exists.
We could have a qmp command test collection as a home of last resort.
Temptation to just throw a few random test cases there instead of
covering (a set of related) commands with a proper test case collection.

As is, your patch turns qmp-test.c into such a home of last resort.  If
that's what we want, we should update the file comment.  But I think I'd
rather have a separate qmp-cmd-test.c.

Thoughts?