Eric Blake <ebl...@redhat.com> writes: > On 07/27/2018 11:46 AM, Thomas Huth wrote: >> On 07/27/2018 05:13 PM, Markus Armbruster wrote: >>> qtest_qmp_discard_response(...) is shorthand for >>> qobject_unref(qtest_qmp(...), except it's not actually shorter. >> >> But the latter is IMHO harder to read.
Doing things sloppily looks a bit uglier now. That's a feature. > Maybe, but then it lends itself well to: > > QObject *rsp = qtest_qmp(...); > qobject_unref(rsp); > > which is where you do insert tests for valid responses. > >> And it might be shorter in the compiled binary (one function call vs. two). I'd be quite sympathetic to this argument... > The size of the test binaries is not our biggest concern. ... outside tests/. >>> Moreover, the presence of these functions encourage sloppy testing. >> >> Shouldn't we then rather fix the tests to check for valid responses >> instead of replacing this function with harder-to-read code? I'd welcome such patches, but this series is already pretty long. > I think such fixes are now easier to make, but can be separate > followup patches. The mechanical conversion is fine to me.
