From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Received: from [140.186.70.92] (port=52927 helo=eggs.gnu.org)
	by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1OJoQL-0005HG-Ie
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Wed, 02 Jun 2010 09:56:02 -0400
Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.69)
	(envelope-from <lcapitulino@redhat.com>) id 1OJoQJ-0006hw-Q2
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Wed, 02 Jun 2010 09:56:01 -0400
Received: from mx1.redhat.com ([209.132.183.28]:47339)
	by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69)
	(envelope-from <lcapitulino@redhat.com>) id 1OJoQJ-0006hf-IM
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Wed, 02 Jun 2010 09:55:59 -0400
Date: Wed, 2 Jun 2010 10:55:48 -0300
From: Luiz Capitulino <lcapitulino@redhat.com>
Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH 8/9] QMP: Introduce qmp_check_input_obj()
Message-ID: <20100602105548.74a90768@redhat.com>
In-Reply-To: <m3vda1evdd.fsf@blackfin.pond.sub.org>
References: <1275424897-32253-1-git-send-email-lcapitulino@redhat.com>
	<1275424897-32253-9-git-send-email-lcapitulino@redhat.com>
	<m3vda1evdd.fsf@blackfin.pond.sub.org>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
List-Id: qemu-devel.nongnu.org
List-Unsubscribe: <http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/qemu-devel>,
	<mailto:qemu-devel-request@nongnu.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.nongnu.org/archive/html/qemu-devel>
List-Post: <mailto:qemu-devel@nongnu.org>
List-Help: <mailto:qemu-devel-request@nongnu.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/qemu-devel>,
	<mailto:qemu-devel-request@nongnu.org?subject=subscribe>
To: Markus Armbruster <armbru@redhat.com>
Cc: jan.kiszka@siemens.com, qemu-devel@nongnu.org

On Wed, 02 Jun 2010 09:39:26 +0200
Markus Armbruster <armbru@redhat.com> wrote:

> Luiz Capitulino <lcapitulino@redhat.com> writes:
> 
> > This is similar to qmp_check_client_args(), but checks if
> > the input object follows the specification (QMP/qmp-spec.txt
> > section 2.3).
> >
> > As we're limited to three keys, the work here is quite simple:
> > we iterate over the input object, each time checking if the
> > given argument complies to the specification.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Luiz Capitulino <lcapitulino@redhat.com>
> > ---
> >  monitor.c |   45 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
> >  1 files changed, 45 insertions(+), 0 deletions(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/monitor.c b/monitor.c
> > index 1875731..654b193 100644
> > --- a/monitor.c
> > +++ b/monitor.c
> > @@ -4271,6 +4271,45 @@ static int qmp_check_client_args(const mon_cmd_t *cmd, QDict *client_args)
> >      return res.result;
> >  }
> >  
> > +/*
> > + * Input object checking rules
> > + *
> > + * 1. "execute" key must exist (not checked here)
> > + * 2. "execute" key must be a string
> > + * 3. "arguments" key must be a dict
> > + * 4. "id" key can be anything (ie. json-value)
> 
> Really?  Checking qmp-spec.txt... yes, really.  Is it a good idea to
> permit objects and arrays?

 It was Avi's suggestion to allow anything, maybe arrays don't make sense
but objects do.