Commit Graph

4 Commits

Author SHA1 Message Date
Eric Blake ac4338f8eb qapi: Allow anonymous base for flat union
Rather than requiring all flat unions to explicitly create
a separate base struct, we can allow the qapi schema to specify
the common members via an inline dictionary. This is similar to
how commands can specify an inline anonymous type for its 'data'.
We already have several struct types that only exist to serve as
a single flat union's base; the next commit will clean them up.
In particular, this patch's change to the BlockdevOptions example
in qapi-code-gen.txt will actually be done in the real QAPI schema.

Now that anonymous bases are legal, we need to rework the
flat-union-bad-base negative test (as previously written, it
forms what is now valid QAPI; tweak it to now provide coverage
of a new error message path), and add a positive test in
qapi-schema-test to use an anonymous base (making the integer
argument optional, for even more coverage).

Note that this patch only allows anonymous bases for flat unions;
simple unions are already enough syntactic sugar that we do not
want to burden them further.  Meanwhile, while it would be easy
to also allow an anonymous base for structs, that would be quite
redundant, as the members can be put right into the struct
instead.

Signed-off-by: Eric Blake <eblake@redhat.com>
Message-Id: <1458254921-17042-15-git-send-email-eblake@redhat.com>
Signed-off-by: Markus Armbruster <armbru@redhat.com>
2016-03-18 10:29:26 +01:00
Eric Blake 376863ef48 qapi: Reuse code for flat union base validation
Rather than open-code the check for a valid base type, we
should reuse the common functionality. This allows for
consistent error messages, and also makes it easier for a
later patch to turn on support for inline anonymous base
structures.

Test flat-union-inline is updated to test only one feature
(anonymous branch dictionaries), which can be implemented
independently (test flat-union-bad-base already covers the
idea of an anonymous base dictionary).

Signed-off-by: Eric Blake <eblake@redhat.com>
Message-Id: <1443565276-4535-10-git-send-email-eblake@redhat.com>
Signed-off-by: Markus Armbruster <armbru@redhat.com>
2015-10-12 18:46:49 +02:00
Eric Blake 44bd1276a7 qapi: Tighten checking of unions
Previous commits demonstrated that the generator had several
flaws with less-than-perfect unions:
- a simple union that listed the same branch twice (or two variant
names that map to the same C enumerator, including the implicit
MAX sentinel) ended up generating invalid C code
- an anonymous union that listed two branches with the same qtype
ended up generating invalid C code
- the generator crashed on anonymous union attempts to use an
array type
- the generator was silently ignoring a base type for anonymous
unions
- the generator allowed unknown types or nested anonymous unions
as a branch in an anonymous union

Signed-off-by: Eric Blake <eblake@redhat.com>
Reviewed-by: Markus Armbruster <armbru@redhat.com>
Signed-off-by: Markus Armbruster <armbru@redhat.com>
2015-05-05 18:39:00 +02:00
Eric Blake 3d0c482926 qapi: Add some union tests
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>
2015-05-05 18:39:00 +02:00