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.
--
Marc-André Lureau
