On 08/14/2018 07:53 PM, Markus Armbruster wrote:
> Thomas Huth <th...@redhat.com> writes:
[...]
>> @@ -115,10 +122,18 @@ static void test_one_device(const char *type)
>>
>> /*
>> * Some devices leave dangling pointers in QOM behind.
>> - * "info qom-tree" has a good chance at crashing then
>> + * "info qom-tree" or "info qtree" have a good chance at crashing then.
>> + * Also make sure that the tree did not change.
>> */
>> - qom_tree = hmp("info qom-tree");
>> - g_free(qom_tree);
>> + qom_tree_end = hmp("info qom-tree");
>> + g_assert_cmpstr(qom_tree_start, ==, qom_tree_end);
>> + g_free(qom_tree_start);
>> + g_free(qom_tree_end);
>> +
>> + qtree_end = hmp("info qtree");
>> + g_assert_cmpstr(qtree_start, ==, qtree_end);
>> + g_free(qtree_start);
>> + g_free(qtree_end);
>> }
>>
>> static void test_device_intro_list(void)
>
> Output of "info qom-tree" depends on hash table iteration order, but
> that could almost be considered a feature here.
Currently, it seems to work fine. If we hit a false positive with
ordering later, we still can add some code for sorting the output, I guess?
Thomas
