Laszlo Ersek <ler...@redhat.com> writes: > On 07/27/13 17:41, Markus Armbruster wrote: >> The parser handles erroneous input badly. To be improved shortly. >> >> Signed-off-by: Markus Armbruster <arm...@redhat.com> > >> diff --git a/tests/Makefile b/tests/Makefile >> index cdbb79e..ddb957c 100644 >> --- a/tests/Makefile >> +++ b/tests/Makefile > >> @@ -233,13 +242,24 @@ check-report.html: check-report.xml >> check-tests/qemu-iotests-quick.sh: tests/qemu-iotests-quick.sh >> qemu-img$(EXESUF) qemu-io$(EXESUF) >> $< >> >> +.PHONY: check-tests/test-qapi.py >> +check-tests/test-qapi.py: tests/test-qapi.py >> + >> +.PHONY: $(patsubst %, check-%, $(check-qapi-schema-y)) >> +$(patsubst %, check-%, $(check-qapi-schema-y)): check-%.json: >> $(SRC_PATH)/%.json >> + $(call quiet-command, PYTHONPATH=$(SRC_PATH)/scripts $(PYTHON) >> $(SRC_PATH)/tests/qapi-schema/test-qapi.py <$^ >$*.out 2>$*.err; echo $$? >> >$*.exit, " TEST $*.out") >> + @diff -q $(SRC_PATH)/$*.out $*.out >> + @diff -q $(SRC_PATH)/$*.err $*.err >> + @diff -q $(SRC_PATH)/$*.exit $*.exit >> + > > Unfortunately, this doesn't catch errors/differences when someone builds > qemu in the source tree, and runs "make check" there. In that case, > whatever output "test-qapi.py" produces, overwrites the in-tree file, > and the diff commands compare files with themselves.
D'uh! Will fix. Thanks! > Also, why is 2/9 a good idea, namely, using "qapi-schema-test.json" as a > test file itself? Whoever adds a new test, for anything that uses the > schema, now has to update the .out file as well. The parser needs to be tested with input that exercises all schema features. Since such a test already existed, I extended it to additionally test the parser. If this coupling turns out to be inconvenient, we can split the test in two: qapi-schema-test.json goes back to just its original purpose, and a (possibly simplified) copy is used for testing the parser. Drawback: when you add schema features, you have to update both tests to cover them. Neglecting to add any tests is obvious in review. Forgetting one of two not so much. > (And, due to the above, > only realizes this burden when someone else tries to make-check his/her > code outside of the tree...) Anyone posting patches without running "make check" gets exactly what he asked for: embarrassment :)
