From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:34705) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1ffKvs-0000fZ-FE for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Tue, 17 Jul 2018 04:02:05 -0400 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1ffKvm-0003yh-Br for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Tue, 17 Jul 2018 04:02:04 -0400 Received: from mx3-rdu2.redhat.com ([66.187.233.73]:42410 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 1ffKvm-0003y1-6A for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Tue, 17 Jul 2018 04:01:58 -0400 Received: from smtp.corp.redhat.com (int-mx04.intmail.prod.int.rdu2.redhat.com [10.11.54.4]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mx1.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 9DD31402315B for ; Tue, 17 Jul 2018 08:01:57 +0000 (UTC) From: Markus Armbruster References: <20180706121354.2021-1-marcandre.lureau@redhat.com> <20180706121354.2021-10-marcandre.lureau@redhat.com> Date: Tue, 17 Jul 2018 10:01:55 +0200 In-Reply-To: <20180706121354.2021-10-marcandre.lureau@redhat.com> (=?utf-8?Q?=22Marc-Andr=C3=A9?= Lureau"'s message of "Fri, 6 Jul 2018 14:13:51 +0200") Message-ID: <87zhyqe1e4.fsf@dusky.pond.sub.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH 09/12] tests: add a few qemu-qmp tests List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , To: =?utf-8?Q?Marc-Andr=C3=A9?= Lureau Cc: qemu-devel@nongnu.org, peterx@redhat.com Marc-Andr=C3=A9 Lureau 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-Andr=C3=A9 Lureau > --- > 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 =3D qtest_init(common_args); > + > + ret =3D 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), =3D=3D, "GenericError"); > + > + qobject_unref(ret); > + qtest_quit(qts); > +} > + > +static void test_qom_set_without_value(void) > +{ > + QTestState *qts; > + QDict *ret; > + > + qts =3D qtest_init(common_args); >=20=20 > + ret =3D qtest_qmp(qts, "{'execute': 'qom-set'," > + " 'arguments': { 'path': '/machine', 'property': 'rtc-time= ' } }"); > + g_assert_nonnull(ret); > + > + g_assert_cmpstr(get_error_class(ret), =3D=3D, "GenericError"); > + > + qobject_unref(ret); > qtest_quit(qts); > } >=20=20 > @@ -479,8 +511,13 @@ int main(int argc, char *argv[]) >=20=20 > g_test_init(&argc, &argv, NULL); >=20=20 > + 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 =3D g_test_run(); >=20=20 > 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?