On Mon, Nov 27, 2023 at 05:32:45PM -0300, Fabiano Rosas wrote:
> Peter Xu <pet...@redhat.com> writes:
>
> > On Mon, Nov 27, 2023 at 12:52:38PM -0300, Fabiano Rosas wrote:
> >> >> @@ -118,6 +118,12 @@ void migrate_incoming_qmp(QTestState *to, const
> >> >> char *uri, const char *fmt, ...)
> >> >>
> >> >> rsp = qtest_qmp(to, "{ 'execute': 'migrate-incoming', 'arguments':
> >> >> %p}",
> >> >> args);
> >> >> +
> >> >> + if (!qdict_haskey(rsp, "return")) {
> >> >> + g_autoptr(GString) s = qobject_to_json_pretty(QOBJECT(rsp),
> >> >> true);
> >> >> + g_test_message("%s", s->str);
> >> >> + }
> >> >
> >> > This traps the "migrate-incoming" command only (which, afaiu, only setup
> >> > the listening), would this capture the incoming error?
> >>
> >> This is about the migrate-incoming only. We could replace "incoming
> >> migration" with "qmp_migrate_incoming" in the commit message to clarify.
> >
> > Ah.. Did you ever see this failure in any of your runs in these tests? I
> > think it means you hit the assertion right below this part, but I'm just
> > curious how, as the URIs in the test cases are pretty constant.
>
> Yes, I don't remember what exactly, but we changed the code that parses
> the URIs in this release and I'm also working on
> file_start_incoming_migration.
OK then.
Reviewed-by: Peter Xu <pet...@redhat.com>
--
Peter Xu
