[v9,17/27] qapi: Clean up after previous commit

From: Markus Armbruster <armbru@redhat.com>

QAPISchemaObjectTypeVariants.check() parameter members is no
longer used, drop it.

Signed-off-by: Markus Armbruster <armbru@redhat.com>
Message-Id: <1446559499-26984-3-git-send-email-armbru@redhat.com>
[Variant.check(seen) is used after all, so reword and reduce scope
of this patch; rearrange later in the series]
Signed-off-by: Eric Blake <eblake@redhat.com>

---
v9: new patch
---
 scripts/qapi.py | 6 +++---
 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)

Eric Blake <eblake@redhat.com> writes:

> From: Markus Armbruster <armbru@redhat.com>
>
> QAPISchemaObjectTypeVariants.check() parameter members is no
> longer used, drop it.
>
> Signed-off-by: Markus Armbruster <armbru@redhat.com>
> Message-Id: <1446559499-26984-3-git-send-email-armbru@redhat.com>
> [Variant.check(seen) is used after all, so reword and reduce scope
> of this patch; rearrange later in the series]

Don't you need to update the subject?  My "previous commit" was "qapi:
Simplify QAPISchemaObjectTypeMember.check()", while yours is "qapi:
Eliminate QAPISchemaObjectType.check() variable members".

Not sure what moving my two patches apart buys you :)

> Signed-off-by: Eric Blake <eblake@redhat.com>
>
> ---
> v9: new patch
> ---
>  scripts/qapi.py | 6 +++---
>  1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/scripts/qapi.py b/scripts/qapi.py
> index 4019389..3af5edb 100644
> --- a/scripts/qapi.py
> +++ b/scripts/qapi.py
> @@ -991,7 +991,7 @@ class QAPISchemaObjectType(QAPISchemaType):
>              assert m.name not in seen
>              seen[m.name] = m
>          if self.variants:
> -            self.variants.check(schema, [], seen)
> +            self.variants.check(schema, seen)
>          self.members = seen.values()
>
>      def is_implicit(self):
> @@ -1046,7 +1046,7 @@ class QAPISchemaObjectTypeVariants(object):
>          self.tag_member = tag_member
>          self.variants = variants
>
> -    def check(self, schema, members, seen):
> +    def check(self, schema, seen):
>          # seen is non-empty for unions, empty for alternates
>          if self.tag_name:    # flat union
>              self.tag_member = seen[self.tag_name]
> @@ -1086,7 +1086,7 @@ class QAPISchemaAlternateType(QAPISchemaType):
>
>      def check(self, schema):
>          self.variants.tag_member.check(schema)
> -        self.variants.check(schema, [], {})
> +        self.variants.check(schema, {})
>
>      def json_type(self):
>          return 'value'

On 11/04/2015 06:43 AM, Markus Armbruster wrote:
> Eric Blake <eblake@redhat.com> writes:
> 
>> From: Markus Armbruster <armbru@redhat.com>
>>
>> QAPISchemaObjectTypeVariants.check() parameter members is no
>> longer used, drop it.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Markus Armbruster <armbru@redhat.com>
>> Message-Id: <1446559499-26984-3-git-send-email-armbru@redhat.com>
>> [Variant.check(seen) is used after all, so reword and reduce scope
>> of this patch; rearrange later in the series]
> 
> Don't you need to update the subject?  My "previous commit" was "qapi:
> Simplify QAPISchemaObjectTypeMember.check()", while yours is "qapi:
> Eliminate QAPISchemaObjectType.check() variable members".
> 
> Not sure what moving my two patches apart buys you :)

I'm not quite sure either.  [Can I blame late-night coding?]  For
reference, this was your 3/7 patch.  I was trying to get to the point of
my 'qapi: Check for qapi collisions of flat union branches' (ended up as
19/27) as soon as possible after my tweaks to your 'qapi: Drop obsolete
tag value collision assertions' (your 1/7), so that there was less of a
gap where avoiding churn on passing vseen(dict) to Variant.check()
looked like an unused variable.

In my first attempt, I tried floating my patch right after yours.  But I
quickly discovered that my patch worked better if I built it on top of
your 'qapi: Factor out QAPISchemaObjectTypeMember.check_clash()' (your
6/7), which in turn depended on several of your other patches.  So the
end result of what I posted happens to be whatever order worked for all
my cherry-picking, and I still ended up having to tweak both your 1/7
and 3/7 after all.

For v10, I may just go back to the order that you first supplied patches
in (if for no other reason than to make your commit message more
accurate about being a cleanup of the previous patch, with the meaning
that you had given it).