Referring to "type" as both a meta-type (built-in, enum, union,
alternate, or struct) and a specific type (the name that the
schema uses for declaring structs) is confusing. The confusion
is only made worse by the fact that the generator mostly already
refers to struct even when dealing with expr['type']. This
commit changes the generator to consistently refer to it as
struct everywhere, plus a single back-compat tweak that allows
accepting the existing .json files as-is, so that the meat of
this change is separate from the mindless churn of that change.
Fix the testsuite fallout for error messages that change, and
in some cases, become more legible. Improve comments to better
match our intentions where a struct (rather than any complex
type) is required. Note that in some cases, an error message
now refers to 'struct' while the schema still refers to 'type';
that will be cleaned up in the later commit to the schema.
Signed-off-by: Eric Blake <eblake@redhat.com>
Reviewed-by: Markus Armbruster <armbru@redhat.com>
Signed-off-by: Markus Armbruster <armbru@redhat.com>
The previous commit demonstrated that the generator overlooked some
fairly basic broken expressions:
- missing metataype
- metatype key has a non-string value
- unknown key in relation to the metatype
- conflicting metatype (this patch treats the second metatype as an
unknown key of the first key visited, which is not necessarily the
first key the user typed)
Add check_keys to cover these situations, and update testcases to
match. A couple other tests (enum-missing-data, indented-expr) had
to change since the validation added here occurs so early.
Conversely, changes to ident-with-escape results show that we still
have problems where our handling of escape sequences differs from
true JSON, which will matter down the road if we allow arbitrary
default string values for optional parameters (but for now is not
too bad, as we currently can avoid unicode escaping as we don't
need to represent anything beyond C identifier material).
While valid .json files won't trigger any of these cases, we might
as well be nicer to developers that make a typo while trying to add
new QAPI code.
Signed-off-by: Eric Blake <eblake@redhat.com>
Reviewed-by: Markus Armbruster <armbru@redhat.com>
Signed-off-by: Markus Armbruster <armbru@redhat.com>
Demonstrate that the qapi generator doesn't deal well with
expressions that aren't up to par. Later patches will improve
the expected results as the generator is made stricter. Only
a few of the the added tests actually behave sanely at
rejecting obvious problems or demonstrating success.
Note that in some cases, we reject bad QAPI merely because our
pseudo-JSON parser does not yet know how to parse numbers. This
series does not address that, but when a later series adds support
for numeric defaults of integer fields, the testsuite will ensure
that we don't lose the error (and hopefully that the error
message quality is improved).
Signed-off-by: Eric Blake <eblake@redhat.com>
Reviewed-by: Markus Armbruster <armbru@redhat.com>
Signed-off-by: Markus Armbruster <armbru@redhat.com>
Eric Blake