Re: [PATCH v3 2/3] tests: qapi: Test 'features' of commands

[Peter Krempa <pkrempa@redhat.com>]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 6577 bytes --]

On Thu, Oct 10, 2019 at 15:53:30 +0200, Markus Armbruster wrote:
> Peter Krempa <pkrempa@redhat.com> writes:
> 
> > Signed-off-by: Peter Krempa <pkrempa@redhat.com>
> > ---
> >  tests/qapi-schema/qapi-schema-test.json | 26 ++++++++++++++++++++++
> >  tests/qapi-schema/qapi-schema-test.out  | 29 +++++++++++++++++++++++++
> >  tests/qapi-schema/test-qapi.py          |  4 ++++
> >  tests/test-qmp-cmds.c                   | 28 ++++++++++++++++++++++++
> >  4 files changed, 87 insertions(+)
> 
> More thorough than I asked for.  I'm not complaining :)
> 
> >
> > diff --git a/tests/qapi-schema/qapi-schema-test.json b/tests/qapi-schema/qapi-schema-test.json
> > index 75c42eb0e3..220859d4c9 100644
> > --- a/tests/qapi-schema/qapi-schema-test.json
> > +++ b/tests/qapi-schema/qapi-schema-test.json
> > @@ -290,3 +290,29 @@
> >              'cfs1': 'CondFeatureStruct1',
> >              'cfs2': 'CondFeatureStruct2',
> >              'cfs3': 'CondFeatureStruct3' } }
> > +
> > +# test 'features' for command
> > +
> > +{ 'command': 'test-command-features1',
> > +  'features': [] }
> > +
> > +{ 'command': 'test-command-features2',
> > +  'features': [ 'feature1' ] }
> > +
> > +{ 'command': 'test-command-features3',
> > +  'features': [ 'feature1', 'feature2' ] }
> > +
> > +{ 'command': 'test-command-features4',
> > +  'features': [ { 'name': 'feature1', 'if': 'defined(TEST_IF_FEATURE_1)'} ] }
> > +
> > +{ 'command': 'test-command-features5',
> > +  'features': [ { 'name': 'feature1', 'if': 'defined(TEST_IF_FEATURE_1)'},
> > +                { 'name': 'feature2', 'if': 'defined(TEST_IF_FEATURE_2)'} ] }
> > +
> > +{ 'command': 'test-command-features6',
> > +  'features': [ { 'name': 'feature1', 'if': 'defined(TEST_IF_FEATURE_1)'},
> > +                { 'name': 'feature2', 'if': 'defined(TEST_IF_FEATURE_2)'} ] }
> 
> Do you need both test-command-features5 and 6?  They look the same to me...

No. It can be dropped. Looks like I mistakenly appropriated
'CondFeatureStruct2' test twice :/

> > +{ 'command': 'test-command-features7',
> > +  'features': [ { 'name': 'feature1', 'if': [ 'defined(TEST_IF_COND_1)',
> > +                                              'defined(TEST_IF_COND_2)'] } ] }
> > diff --git a/tests/qapi-schema/qapi-schema-test.out b/tests/qapi-schema/qapi-schema-test.out
> > index 98031da96f..a38e348d54 100644
> > --- a/tests/qapi-schema/qapi-schema-test.out
> > +++ b/tests/qapi-schema/qapi-schema-test.out
> > @@ -412,3 +412,32 @@ object q_obj_test-features-arg
> >      member cfs3: CondFeatureStruct3 optional=False
> >  command test-features q_obj_test-features-arg -> None
> >     gen=True success_response=True boxed=False oob=False preconfig=False
> > +command test-command-features1 None -> None
> > +   gen=True success_response=True boxed=False oob=False preconfig=False
> > +command test-command-features2 None -> None
> > +   gen=True success_response=True boxed=False oob=False preconfig=False
> > +   feature feature1
> > +command test-command-features3 None -> None
> > +   gen=True success_response=True boxed=False oob=False preconfig=False
> > +   feature feature1
> > +   feature feature2
> > +command test-command-features4 None -> None
> > +   gen=True success_response=True boxed=False oob=False preconfig=False
> > +   feature feature1
> > +        if ['defined(TEST_IF_FEATURE_1)']
> > +command test-command-features5 None -> None
> > +   gen=True success_response=True boxed=False oob=False preconfig=False
> > +   feature feature1
> > +        if ['defined(TEST_IF_FEATURE_1)']
> > +   feature feature2
> > +        if ['defined(TEST_IF_FEATURE_2)']
> > +command test-command-features6 None -> None
> > +   gen=True success_response=True boxed=False oob=False preconfig=False
> > +   feature feature1
> > +        if ['defined(TEST_IF_FEATURE_1)']
> > +   feature feature2
> > +        if ['defined(TEST_IF_FEATURE_2)']
> > +command test-command-features7 None -> None
> > +   gen=True success_response=True boxed=False oob=False preconfig=False
> > +   feature feature1
> > +        if ['defined(TEST_IF_COND_1)', 'defined(TEST_IF_COND_2)']
> > diff --git a/tests/qapi-schema/test-qapi.py b/tests/qapi-schema/test-qapi.py
> > index e13c2e8671..62e65b6a7d 100755
> > --- a/tests/qapi-schema/test-qapi.py
> > +++ b/tests/qapi-schema/test-qapi.py
> > @@ -80,6 +80,10 @@ class QAPISchemaTestVisitor(QAPISchemaVisitor):
> >          print('   gen=%s success_response=%s boxed=%s oob=%s preconfig=%s'
> >                % (gen, success_response, boxed, allow_oob, allow_preconfig))
> >          self._print_if(ifcond)
> > +        if features:
> > +            for f in features:
> > +                print('   feature %s' % f.name)
> > +                self._print_if(f.ifcond, 8)
> 
> Copied from visit_object_type().  Let's factor it into a @staticmethod
> _print_features().

I'm not sure if that's intentional but the 'struct' and 'command'
feature printers differ in indentation level by one space. I went for
aligning it with the 'gen' line above. I thought it's for visual
separation with other possible lines.

> >      def visit_event(self, name, info, ifcond, arg_type, boxed):
> >          print('event %s %s' % (name, arg_type and arg_type.name))
> > diff --git a/tests/test-qmp-cmds.c b/tests/test-qmp-cmds.c
> > index 36fdf5b115..19f6e06ba7 100644
> > --- a/tests/test-qmp-cmds.c
> > +++ b/tests/test-qmp-cmds.c
> > @@ -51,6 +51,34 @@ void qmp_test_features(FeatureStruct0 *fs0, FeatureStruct1 *fs1,
> >  {
> >  }
> >
> > +void qmp_test_command_features1(Error **errp)
> > +{
> > +}
> > +
> > +void qmp_test_command_features2(Error **errp)
> > +{
> > +}
> > +
> > +void qmp_test_command_features3(Error **errp)
> > +{
> > +}
> > +
> > +void qmp_test_command_features4(Error **errp)
> > +{
> > +}
> > +
> > +void qmp_test_command_features5(Error **errp)
> > +{
> > +}
> > +
> > +void qmp_test_command_features6(Error **errp)
> > +{
> > +}
> > +
> > +void qmp_test_command_features7(Error **errp)
> > +{
> > +}
> > +
> >  UserDefTwo *qmp_user_def_cmd2(UserDefOne *ud1a,
> >                                bool has_udb1, UserDefOne *ud1b,
> >                                Error **errp)
> 
> Any particular reason why we shouldn't squash this into PATCH 1?

Not really. I tend to prefer tests added separately and it was also done
so in case of features for 'structs' so I went with that approach. Said
that I'm perfectly fine with squashing them.

[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 833 bytes --]