Eric Blake <ebl...@redhat.com> writes: > On 10/01/2015 09:34 AM, Markus Armbruster wrote: > >>>> Do we have a test for the simpler case of a struct inheriting from >>>> itself? >>> >>> Not here, but in v5 16/46. That's because it asserts, but while it was >>> easy to fix up in the QAPISchema.check(), I did not find it worth the >>> churn to fix it up in the ad hoc parse code just to rip it back out >>> later, and the QAPISchema.check() code requires several scaffolding >>> patches (so it wasn't as easy as fixing the union 'type' clash asserts). >>> Tracking an assertion failure for any more than one patch at a time is >>> horrible (as any other change to qapi.py changes line numbers that >>> affect the assertion failure). >> >> Well, I'm happy to take a test for inheritance loops, or leave it >> uncovered for now, but I don't want to take a non-working test of an >> unimplemented obscure case "union" without a test for the implemented >> case "struct". >> >> I can: >> >> A. Drop this test case. >> >> B. Replace it with the test case from 16/46. >> >> C. Add the test case from 16/46 and keep this one. >> >> I very much prefer B. You? > > If we go with B, we'd have an assertion failure that does not get fixed > by 6/18, and therefore is subject to churn until the fix is present. > > I'm leaning towards A (calling self-inheritance a name collision is a > bit of a stretch in the first place; and leaving it untested until 16/46 > goes in doesn't hurt).
Okay, A. it is. I pushed to branch qapi-next at http://repo.or.cz/qemu/armbru.git
