On 2/26/20 6:31 AM, Max Reitz wrote:
> On 26.02.20 01:44, John Snow wrote:
>> Instead of having somewhat reproduced it for itself.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: John Snow <js...@redhat.com>
>> ---
>> tests/qemu-iotests/040 | 51 +++++++++++++++++++++---------------------
>> 1 file changed, 25 insertions(+), 26 deletions(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/tests/qemu-iotests/040 b/tests/qemu-iotests/040
>> index 90b59081ff..579dafc797 100755
>> --- a/tests/qemu-iotests/040
>> +++ b/tests/qemu-iotests/040
>> @@ -483,34 +483,33 @@ class TestErrorHandling(iotests.QMPTestCase):
>> file=('top-dbg' if top_debug else 'top-file'),
>> backing='mid-fmt')
>>
>> +
>> + class TestJobRunner(iotests.JobRunner):
>> + expected_events = ('BLOCK_JOB_COMPLETED',
>> + 'BLOCK_JOB_ERROR',
>> + 'BLOCK_JOB_READY')
>> +
>> + def __init__(self, *args, test, **kwargs):
>> + super().__init__(*args, **kwargs)
>> + self.log = []
>> + self.test = test
>> +
>> + def on_pause(self, event):
>> + result = self._vm.qmp('block-job-resume', device=self._id)
>> + self.test.assert_qmp(result, 'return', {})
>> + super().on_pause(event)
>
> Not that it functionally matters, but I suppose I’d call
> super().on_pause() before resuming (because the job isn’t exactly paused
> afterwards).
>
Reasonable detail to consider.
It's also likely valid to just *omit* calling the base class pause event
when overriding behavior -- If we decide to send resume commands in the
future, we'll want to avoid sending conflicting/duplicate events.
In this case, the base event is just a NOP so it doesn't matter, but it
probably is good hygiene to avoid changing the state *and then* calling
the base class.
So I think this is a valid observation that should be worked into the
docstring for the JobRunner class on how best to make use of it.
>> +
>> + def on_block_job_event(self, event):
>> + if event['event'] not in self.expected_events:
>> + self.test.fail("Unexpected event: %s" % event)
>> + super().on_block_job_event(event)
>> + self.log.append(iotests.filter_qmp_event(event))
>
> Hasn’t the event been through filter_qmp_event() already?
>
Oh, yeah. When I converted 040 here I just kind of shoehorned it onto
the new API in a somewhat mechanical fashion, but you're right.
