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>
Now that we know every expression is valid with regards to
its keys, we can add further tests that those keys refer to
valid types. With this patch, all uses of a type (the 'data':
of command, type, union, alternate, and event; the 'returns':
of command; the 'base': of type and union) must resolve to an
appropriate subset of metatypes declared by the current qapi
parse; this includes recursing into each member of a data
dictionary. Dealing with '**' and nested anonymous structs
will be done in later patches.
Update the testsuite to match improved output.
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>
