Commit graph

3 commits

Author SHA1 Message Date
Markus Armbruster 65fbe12545 qapi: Drop one of two "simple union must not have base" checks
The first check ensures the second one can't trigger.  Drop the first
one, because the second one is in a more logical place, and emits a
nicer error message.

Signed-off-by: Markus Armbruster <armbru@redhat.com>
Reviewed-by: Eric Blake <eblake@redhat.com>
2015-09-04 15:47:16 +02:00
Eric Blake a8d4a2e4d7 qapi: Forbid base without discriminator in unions
None of the existing QMP or QGA interfaces uses a union with a
base type but no discriminator; it is easier to avoid this in the
generator to save room for other future extensions more likely to
be useful.  An earlier commit added a union-base-no-discriminator
test to ensure that we eventually give a decent error message;
likewise, removing UserDefUnion outright is okay, because we moved
all the tests we wish to keep into the tests of the simple union
UserDefNativeListUnion in the previous commit.  Now is the time to
actually forbid simple union with base, and remove the last
vestiges from the testsuite.

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