Our type inheritance for both 'struct' and for flat 'union' merges
key/value pairs from the base class with those from the type in
question. Although the C code currently boxes things so that there
is a distinction between which member is referred to, the QMP wire
format does not allow passing a key more than once in a single
object. Besides, if we ever change the generated C code to not be
quite so boxy, we'd want to avoid duplicate member names there,
too.
Fix a testsuite entry added in an earlier patch, as well as adding
a couple more tests to ensure we have appropriate coverage. Ensure
that collisions are detected, regardless of whether there is a
difference in opinion on whether the member name is optional.
Signed-off-by: Eric Blake <eblake@redhat.com>
Reviewed-by: Markus Armbruster <armbru@redhat.com>
Signed-off-by: Markus Armbruster <armbru@redhat.com>
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. Do the bulk of
the conversion to "struct" in qapi schema, with a fairly
mechanical:
for f in `find -name '*.json'; do sed -i "s/'type'/'struct'/"; done
followed by manually filtering out the places where we have a
'type' embedded in 'data'. Then tweak a couple of tests whose
output changes slightly due to longer lines.
I also verified that the generated files for QMP and QGA (such
as qmp-commands.h) are the same before and after, as assurance
that I didn't leave in any accidental member name changes.
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>
