mbox series

[v3,0/3] qapi: allow unions to contain further unions

Message ID 20230420102619.348173-1-berrange@redhat.com
Headers show
Series qapi: allow unions to contain further unions | expand

Message

Daniel P. Berrangé April 20, 2023, 10:26 a.m. UTC 
Currently it is not possible for a union type to contain a
further union as one (or more) of its branches. This relaxes
that restriction and adds the calls needed to validate field
name uniqueness as unions are flattened.

In v3:

  * Use markus' suggestion for improved error messages
  * Set env var default in argparse directly

In v2:

  * Improve specificity of type/members descriptions for
    error reporting scenarios
  * Make it easier to regenerate qapi test output
  * Move expected "good data" into qapi-schema-test.json
  * Add description to "bad data" test files
  * Add unit tests to cover union-in-union serialization
    / deserialization to/from JSON

Daniel P. Berrangé (3):
  qapi: support updating expected test output via make
  qapi: improve specificity of type/member descriptions
  qapi: allow unions to contain further unions

 scripts/qapi/schema.py                        | 15 +++--
 tests/qapi-schema/meson.build                 |  2 +
 tests/qapi-schema/qapi-schema-test.json       | 32 ++++++++++
 tests/qapi-schema/qapi-schema-test.out        | 29 ++++++++++
 tests/qapi-schema/test-qapi.py                |  1 +
 .../union-invalid-union-subfield.err          |  2 +
 .../union-invalid-union-subfield.json         | 30 ++++++++++
 .../union-invalid-union-subfield.out          |  0
 .../union-invalid-union-subtype.err           |  2 +
 .../union-invalid-union-subtype.json          | 29 ++++++++++
 .../union-invalid-union-subtype.out           |  0
 tests/unit/test-qobject-input-visitor.c       | 47 +++++++++++++++
 tests/unit/test-qobject-output-visitor.c      | 58 +++++++++++++++++++
 13 files changed, 242 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-)
 create mode 100644 tests/qapi-schema/union-invalid-union-subfield.err
 create mode 100644 tests/qapi-schema/union-invalid-union-subfield.json
 create mode 100644 tests/qapi-schema/union-invalid-union-subfield.out
 create mode 100644 tests/qapi-schema/union-invalid-union-subtype.err
 create mode 100644 tests/qapi-schema/union-invalid-union-subtype.json
 create mode 100644 tests/qapi-schema/union-invalid-union-subtype.out

Comments

Markus Armbruster April 25, 2023, 1:28 p.m. UTC | #1 
Daniel P. Berrangé <berrange@redhat.com> writes:

> Currently it is not possible for a union type to contain a
> further union as one (or more) of its branches. This relaxes
> that restriction and adds the calls needed to validate field
> name uniqueness as unions are flattened.

Queued.  Thanks!