Cleber Rosa <cr...@redhat.com> writes:
> On 08/08/2017 05:13 PM, Eric Blake wrote:
>> On 08/08/2017 03:53 PM, Cleber Rosa wrote:
>>> Most QMP commands and returns in the QAPI schema documentation
>>> are valid "JSON-based wire format". A few examples are either
>>> malformed, or contain comments.
>>>
>>> This fixes all the examples command and return data, making them
>>> proper JSON, as they would be received and generated by QEMU's
>>> QMP monitor.
>>>
>>> Signed-off-by: Cleber Rosa <cr...@redhat.com>
>>> ---
>>> qapi-schema.json | 9 ++++-----
>>> qapi/block-core.json | 32 ++++++++++++++++----------------
>>> qapi/rocker.json | 5 +----
>>> 3 files changed, 21 insertions(+), 25 deletions(-)
>>
>>
>>> +++ b/qapi-schema.json
>>> @@ -2000,8 +2000,7 @@
>>> # "host": "127.0.0.1",
>>> # "channel-id": 0,
>>> # "tls": false
>>> -# },
>>> -# [ ... more channels follow ... ]
>>> +# }
>>
>> I still wonder if we want SOME sort of markup to make it obvious where
>> we are compressing the example for the sake of brevity, where whatever
>> we use to automate tests based on the docs would know how to recognize
>> that the actual values given in reply to the test can be longer than the
>> documented example. But I guess we can cross that when we have an
>> automated test where it matters.
>>
>
> I wonder the same. Also, we seem to agree that it's a separate and more
> complex problem, to be tackled later.
We can cross that bridge when we get to it.
Any particular reason not to keep the [ ... more channels follow ... ]
until then?
>>> @@ -2039,7 +2038,7 @@
>>> #
>>> # -> { "execute": "query-balloon" }
>>> # <- { "return": {
>>> -# "actual": 1073741824,
>>> +# "actual": 1073741824
>>> # }
This is a straighforward doc fix.
>> I also suspect that test automation will have to do a lot of filtering,
>> even for commands that don't need to be abbreviated, since some of the
>> examples have pretty arbitrary numbers that will be difficult to
>> reliably reproduce any particular number.
>>
>
> Yes. I'm already aware of a couple of use cases that will require
> different types of comparison, including pretty relaxed ones. Expect
> more about that in a later thread.
>
>> This is a documentation fix, so it could still go in 2.10 - but since we
>> are past -rc2, it's probably just as easy to save it for 2.11. Either way,
>>
>> Reviewed-by: Eric Blake <ebl...@redhat.com>
>>
>
> Thanks for the prompt review!
