On 2018-08-31 15:24, Marc-André Lureau wrote:
> Hi
> On Fri, Aug 31, 2018 at 3:18 PM Thomas Huth <th...@redhat.com> wrote:
>>
>> On 2018-08-31 14:04, Markus Armbruster wrote:
>>> Thomas Huth <th...@redhat.com> writes:
>>>
>>>> From: Marc-André Lureau <marcandre.lur...@redhat.com>
>>>>
>>>> test_qom_set_without_value() is about a bug in infrastructure used by
>>>> the QMP core, fixed in commit c489780203. We covered the bug in
>>>> infrastructure unit tests (commit bce3035a44). I wrote that test
>>>> earlier, to cover QMP level as well, the test could go into qmp-test.
>>>>
>>>> Signed-off-by: Marc-André Lureau <marcandre.lur...@redhat.com>
>>>> Reviewed-by: Thomas Huth <th...@redhat.com>
>>>> Signed-off-by: Thomas Huth <th...@redhat.com>
>>>> ---
>>>> tests/qmp-test.c | 14 ++++++++++++++
>>>> 1 file changed, 14 insertions(+)
>>>>
>>>> diff --git a/tests/qmp-test.c b/tests/qmp-test.c
>>>> index b347228..2b923f0 100644
>>>> --- a/tests/qmp-test.c
>>>> +++ b/tests/qmp-test.c
>>>> @@ -321,6 +321,19 @@ static void test_qmp_preconfig(void)
>>>> qtest_quit(qs);
>>>> }
>>>>
>>>> +static void test_qom_set_without_value(void)
>>>> +{
>>>> + QTestState *qts;
>>>> + QDict *resp;
>>>> +
>>>> + qts = qtest_init(common_args);
>>>> + resp = qtest_qmp(qts, "{'execute': 'qom-set', 'arguments':"
>>>> + " { 'path': '/machine', 'property': 'rtc-time' } }");
>>>> + g_assert_nonnull(resp);
>>>> + qmp_assert_error_class(resp, "GenericError");
>>>> + qtest_quit(qts);
>>>> +}
>>>> +
>>>> int main(int argc, char *argv[])
>>>> {
>>>> g_test_init(&argc, &argv, NULL);
>>>> @@ -328,6 +341,7 @@ int main(int argc, char *argv[])
>>>> qtest_add_func("qmp/protocol", test_qmp_protocol);
>>>> qtest_add_func("qmp/oob", test_qmp_oob);
>>>> qtest_add_func("qmp/preconfig", test_qmp_preconfig);
>>>> + qtest_add_func("qmp/qom-set-without-value",
>>>> test_qom_set_without_value);
>>>>
>>>> return g_test_run();
>>>> }
>>>
>>> I'm afraid you missed my objection to naming:
>>> Message-ID: <8736uvujxx....@dusky.pond.sub.org>
>>> https://lists.nongnu.org/archive/html/qemu-devel/2018-08/msg06368.html
>>
>> Sorry about that, I was not on CC: for that series. I used the patches
>> from v5 where Marc-André put me on CC:.
>>
>>> If you could work that into PULL v2, I'd be obliged. If not, I'll have
>>> to address it in a follow-up patch.
>>
>> IMHO the naming is not that bad ... OTOH, I think Peter might already be
>> away? ... so we've got plenty of time to sort this out anyway.
>> Marc-André, could you send a new version of the patch?
>
> Tbh, I don't care so much about the naming of the test, but (for once)
> I respectfully don't think Markus suggestion is better.
>
> The function checks "qom-set" without 'value' argument:
> "qom-set-without-value", no brainer..
>
> Naming it "invalid-arg" is so generic that I wouldn't be able what it does.
Ok, then let's keep it this way. As I said, IMHO the current naming is
not really bad, and I also don't have any suggestions for a perfect name
right now.
Thomas
