Re: [PATCH 0/5] qmp-shell modifications for non-interactive use

["Daniel P. Berrangé" <berrange@redhat.com>]

On Wed, Feb 23, 2022 at 10:01:05AM -0500, John Snow wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 23, 2022 at 6:13 AM Daniel P. Berrangé <berrange@redhat.com> wrote:
> >
> > On Wed, Feb 23, 2022 at 10:57:29AM +0100, Damien Hedde wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > > On 2/22/22 11:31, Daniel P. Berrangé wrote:
> > > > On Tue, Feb 22, 2022 at 10:38:09AM +0100, Damien Hedde wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Here I just wanted to propose a simple way to just send a
> > > > > bunch of commands from a source file and stop if something unexpected
> > > > > happens.
> > > > > Only goal is to be able to share a file on the ml and allow people to
> > > > > reproduce easily.
> > > > > We can already redirect the input, but it is almost impossible to see
> > > > > if something failed.
> > > >
> > > > Yes, I see what you mean. So the problem with using 'socat' or similar
> > > > is that we fill the input with commands and response appear asynchronously,
> > > > so we can't match them up easily. This is actually a problem seen in the
> > > > block I/O tests which just send QMP stuff in a batch.
> > > >
> > > > While you could do this by invoking socat once for each command, that
> > > > gets silly with the repeated QMP handshake for each command.
> > > >
> > > > The thing about using qmp-shell is that it does a bunch of extra stuff
> > > > targetted at humans on top, and history tells us it isn't a good idea
> > > > to mix stuff for humans and machines in the same tool/interface.
> > > >
> > > > How about instead creating a separate 'qmp-send' command that is not
> > > > much more than a "QMP-aware socat".  By which I mean, it just reads
> > > > raw QMP commands from stdin, sends each one to the server, but
> > > > crucially waits for a reply after sending each, and stops on first
> > > > error reponse.
> > >
> > > By 'qmp-send' command, you mean another script in scripts/qmp ?
> > > Yes
> >
> > Yep.
> >
> > > If we go for another script, I would rather do one with wrap
> > > feature (like your series) to start qemu as well.
> >
> > Sure, that would certainly make sense.  I actually wanted to add
> > the wrap feature directly into the existing qmp-shell, but it was
> > not viable while maintaining back compat. With a new qmp-send
> > command you can easily make "wrap mode" supported from the start.
> >
> 
> I'm also wary of adding scriptable interfaces to qmp-shell, but I can
> see them having some value.
> 
> I'm not against the ability to add some kind of "load commands from
> file" interactive command to qmp-shell, for instance. (/LOAD or /PLAY
> or something?) ... but then we need to worry about what the format of
> the file is and how exactly that scripting language works. It's a
> design minefield.

My concern is that qmp-shell takes command input in a high level data
format. I don't want to see that format turn into something that
machines use, which is what is proposed initially here.

For this reason I prefer to see a separate qmp-send that solves
the automation problems, without introducing a new data format,
just directly passing raw QMP messages to/fro.

Regards,
Daniel
-- 
|: https://berrange.com      -o-    https://www.flickr.com/photos/dberrange :|
|: https://libvirt.org         -o-            https://fstop138.berrange.com :|
|: https://entangle-photo.org    -o-    https://www.instagram.com/dberrange :|