Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH v5 13/28] qapi: Add some expr tests

[Markus Armbruster]

Eric Blake <address@hidden> writes:

> On 03/27/2015 06:38 AM, Markus Armbruster wrote:
>> Eric Blake <address@hidden> writes:
>> 
>>> On 03/26/2015 09:55 AM, Markus Armbruster wrote:
>>>> Eric Blake <address@hidden> writes:
>>>>
>>>>> 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
>>>>> one of the added tests actually behaves sanely at rejecting
>>>>> obvious problems.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> qapi-code-gen.txt documents the naming conventions:
>>>>
>>>>     Types, commands, and events share a common namespace.  Therefore,
>>>>     generally speaking, type definitions should always use CamelCase for
>>>>     user-defined type names, while built-in types are lowercase. Type
>>>>     definitions should not end in 'Kind', as this namespace is used for
>>>>     creating implicit C enums for visiting union types.  Command names,
>>>>     and field names within a type, should be all lower case with words
>>>>     separated by a hyphen.  However, some existing older commands and
>>>>     complex types use underscore; when extending such expressions,
>>>>     consistency is preferred over blindly avoiding underscore.  Event
>>>>     names should be ALL_CAPS with words separated by underscore.  The
>>>>     special string '**' appears for some commands that manually perform
>>>>     their own type checking rather than relying on the type-safe code
>>>>     produced by the qapi code generators.
>>>>
>>>> We should either enforce the conventions consistently, or not at all.
>>>>
>>>> Enforcing them makes certain kinds of name clashes in generated C
>>>> impossible.  If we don't enforce them, we should catch the clashes.
>>>>
>>>> Since I haven't read to the end of your series, I have to ask: do you
>>>> intend to enforce them?
>>>
>>> I added tests to enforce it for event names, but did not enforce things
>>> for command names or complex type members.  I guess that can be added on
>>> top, if desired.
>>>
>>> So, did this patch get R-b?
>> 
>> I'd rather not enforce naming conventions just for events.
>> 
>> If we want to enforce them, let's do it consistently, and in a separate
>> series that includes this patch.  Okay?
>
> Sounds like I need a v6 respin then, where I drop my patch that attempts
> to enforce all-caps event naming but did not enforce type or command
> naming; but I will keep everything else (enforcing that names are valid
> C identifiers + '-' and '.' (which both get flattened to '_').

Sounds good!