Daniel P. Berrangé <berra...@redhat.com> writes:
> On Mon, Apr 24, 2023 at 01:38:21PM +0200, Markus Armbruster wrote:
>> Daniel P. Berrangé <berra...@redhat.com> writes:
>>
>> > When describing member types always include the context of the
>> > containing type. Although this is often redundant, in some cases
>> > it will help to reduce ambiguity.
>>
>> This is no longer true. It was in v2. Suggest:
>>
>> Error messages describe object members, enumeration values, features,
>> and variants like ROLE 'NAME', where ROLE is "member", "value",
>> "feature", or "branch", respectively. When the member is defined in
>> another type, e.g. inherited from a base type, we add "of type
>> 'TYPE'". Example: test case struct-base-clash-deep reports a member
>> of type 'Sub' clashing with a member of its base type 'Base' as
>>
>> struct-base-clash-deep.json: In struct 'Sub':
>> struct-base-clash-deep.json:10: member 'name' collides with member
>> 'name' of type 'Base'
>>
>> Members of implicitly defined types need special treatment. We don't
>> want to add "of type 'TYPE'" for them, because their named are made up
>> and mean nothing to the user. Instead, we describe members of an
>> implicitly defined base type as "base member 'NAME'", and command and
>> event parameters as "parameter 'NAME'". Example: test case
>> union-bad-base reports member of a variant's type clashing with a
>> member of its implicitly defined base type as
>>
>> union-bad-base.json: In union 'TestUnion':
>> union-bad-base.json:8: member 'string' of type 'TestTypeA' collides
>> with base member 'string'
>>
>> The next commit will permit unions as variant types. "base member
>> 'NAME' would then be ambigious: is it the union's base, or is it the
>> union's variant's base? One of its test cases would report a clash
>> between two such bases as "base member 'type' collides with base
>> member 'type'". Confusing.
>>
>> Refine the special treatment: add "of TYPE" even for implicitly
>> defined types, but massage TYPE and ROLE so they make sense for the
>> user.
>>
>> > Signed-off-by: Daniel P. Berrangé <berra...@redhat.com>
>> > ---
>> > scripts/qapi/schema.py | 9 +++++++--
>> > 1 file changed, 7 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
>> >
>> > diff --git a/scripts/qapi/schema.py b/scripts/qapi/schema.py
>> > index 207e4d71f3..da04b97ded 100644
>> > --- a/scripts/qapi/schema.py
>> > +++ b/scripts/qapi/schema.py
>> > @@ -697,6 +697,7 @@ def connect_doc(self, doc):
>> >
>> > def describe(self, info):
>> > role = self.role
>> > + meta = 'type'
>> > defined_in = self.defined_in
>> > assert defined_in
>> >
>> > @@ -708,13 +709,17 @@ def describe(self, info):
>> > # Implicit type created for a command's dict 'data'
>> > assert role == 'member'
>> > role = 'parameter'
>> > + meta = 'command'
>> > + defined_in = defined_in[:-4]
>> > elif defined_in.endswith('-base'):
>> > # Implicit type created for a union's dict 'base'
>> > role = 'base ' + role
>> > + defined_in = defined_in[:-5]
>> > else:
>> > assert False
>> > - elif defined_in != info.defn_name:
>> > - return "%s '%s' of type '%s'" % (role, self.name, defined_in)
>> > +
>> > + if defined_in != info.defn_name:
>> > + return "%s '%s' of %s '%s'" % (role, self.name, meta,
>> > defined_in)
>> > return "%s '%s'" % (role, self.name)
>>
>> Since I rewrote both the patch and the commit message, would you like me
>> to take the blame and claim authorship?
>
> Yes, I should have credited you as the author here since it was just
> taking your proposed code. The suggested commit message looks fine too
Thanks! May I add your R-by in my tree?
