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>
Previous patches have led up to the point where I create the
new meta-type "'alternate':'Foo'". See the previous patches
for documentation; I intentionally split as much work into
earlier patches to minimize the size of this patch, but a lot
of it is churn due to testsuite fallout after updating to the
new type.
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 unions
that aren't up to par. Later patches will update the expected
reseults as the generator is made stricter. A few tests work
as planned, but most show poor or missing error messages.
Of particular note, qapi-code-gen.txt documents 'base' only for
flat unions, but the tests here demonstrate that we currently allow
a 'base' to a simple union, although it is exercised only in the
testsuite. Later patches will remove this undocumented feature, to
give us more flexibility in adding other future extensions to union
types. For example, one possible extension is the idea of a
type-safe simple enum, where added fields tie the discriminator to
a user-defined enum type rather than creating an implicit enum from
the names in 'data'. But adding such safety on top of a simple
enum with a base type could look ambiguous with a flat enum;
besides, the documentation also mentions how any simple union can
be represented by an equivalent flat union. So it will be simpler
to just outlaw support for something we aren't using.
Signed-off-by: Eric Blake <eblake@redhat.com>
Reviewed-by: Markus Armbruster <armbru@redhat.com>
Signed-off-by: Markus Armbruster <armbru@redhat.com>
