Re: [PATCH 13/28] qapi: Enforce event naming rules

[John Snow <jsnow@redhat.com>]

On 3/24/21 2:22 AM, Markus Armbruster wrote:
> John Snow <jsnow@redhat.com> writes:
> 
>> On 3/23/21 5:40 AM, Markus Armbruster wrote:
>>> Event names should be ALL_CAPS with words separated by underscore.
>>> Enforce this.  The only offenders are in tests/.  Fix them.  Existing
>>> test event-case covers the new error.
>>> Signed-off-by: Markus Armbruster <armbru@redhat.com>
>>> ---
>>>    tests/unit/test-qmp-event.c               |  6 +++---
>>>    scripts/qapi/expr.py                      |  4 +++-
>>>    tests/qapi-schema/doc-good.json           |  4 ++--
>>>    tests/qapi-schema/doc-good.out            |  4 ++--
>>>    tests/qapi-schema/doc-good.txt            |  2 +-
>>>    tests/qapi-schema/doc-invalid-return.json |  4 ++--
>>>    tests/qapi-schema/event-case.err          |  2 ++
>>>    tests/qapi-schema/event-case.json         |  2 --
>>>    tests/qapi-schema/event-case.out          | 14 --------------
>>>    tests/qapi-schema/qapi-schema-test.json   |  6 +++---
>>>    tests/qapi-schema/qapi-schema-test.out    |  8 ++++----
>>>    11 files changed, 22 insertions(+), 34 deletions(-)
>>> diff --git a/tests/unit/test-qmp-event.c
>>> b/tests/unit/test-qmp-event.c
>>> index 047f44ff9a..d58c3b78f2 100644
>>> --- a/tests/unit/test-qmp-event.c
>>> +++ b/tests/unit/test-qmp-event.c
>>> @@ -143,7 +143,7 @@ static void test_event_d(TestEventData *data,
>>>      static void test_event_deprecated(TestEventData *data, const
>>> void *unused)
>>>    {
>>> -    data->expect = qdict_from_jsonf_nofail("{ 'event': 'TEST-EVENT-FEATURES1' }");
>>> +    data->expect = qdict_from_jsonf_nofail("{ 'event': 'TEST_EVENT_FEATURES1' }");
>>>          memset(&compat_policy, 0, sizeof(compat_policy));
>>>    @@ -163,7 +163,7 @@ static void
>>> test_event_deprecated_data(TestEventData *data, const void *unused)
>>>    {
>>>        memset(&compat_policy, 0, sizeof(compat_policy));
>>>    -    data->expect = qdict_from_jsonf_nofail("{ 'event':
>>> 'TEST-EVENT-FEATURES0',"
>>> +    data->expect = qdict_from_jsonf_nofail("{ 'event': 'TEST_EVENT_FEATURES0',"
>>>                                               " 'data': { 'foo': 42 } }");
>>>        qapi_event_send_test_event_features0(42);
>>>        g_assert(data->emitted);
>>> @@ -172,7 +172,7 @@ static void test_event_deprecated_data(TestEventData *data, const void *unused)
>>>          compat_policy.has_deprecated_output = true;
>>>        compat_policy.deprecated_output = COMPAT_POLICY_OUTPUT_HIDE;
>>> -    data->expect = qdict_from_jsonf_nofail("{ 'event': 'TEST-EVENT-FEATURES0' }");
>>> +    data->expect = qdict_from_jsonf_nofail("{ 'event': 'TEST_EVENT_FEATURES0' }");
>>>        qapi_event_send_test_event_features0(42);
>>>        g_assert(data->emitted);
>>>    diff --git a/scripts/qapi/expr.py b/scripts/qapi/expr.py
>>> index b5fb0be48b..c065505b27 100644
>>> --- a/scripts/qapi/expr.py
>>> +++ b/scripts/qapi/expr.py
>>> @@ -45,7 +45,9 @@ def check_name_str(name, info, source):
>>>      def check_name_upper(name, info, source):
>>>        stem = check_name_str(name, info, source)
>>> -    # TODO reject '[a-z-]' in @stem
>>> +    if re.search(r'[a-z-]', stem):
>>> +        raise QAPISemError(
>>> +            info, "name of %s must not use lowercase or '-'" % source)
>>>    
>>
>> Does a little bit more than check_name_upper. Is this only used for
>> event names? I guess so. Should it be inlined into check_defn_name_str
>> instead in this case, or nah?
> 
> I'd prefer not to inline.  I'm open to better function names.
> 
> We have three name styles.  qapi-code-gen.txt:
> 
>      [Type] definitions should always use CamelCase for
>      user-defined type names, while built-in types are lowercase.
> 
>      [...]
> 
>      Command names, and member names within a type, should be all lower
>      case with words separated by a hyphen.  [...]
> 
>      Event names should be ALL_CAPS with words separated by underscore.
> 
> I define three functions for them: check_name_camel(),
> check_name_lower(), and check_name_upper().
> 
> The functions factor out the naming rule aspect, and they let us keep
> the naming rule aspect together.  That's why I'd prefer not to inline.
> 
> We could name them after their purpose instead:
> check_name_user_defined_type(), check_name_command_or_member(),
> check_name_event().  The first two are rather long.  Shorter:
> check_name_type(), check_name_other(), check_name_event().
> 
> Thoughts?
> 

The long names are nice and descriptive.