|
Previous commits demonstrated that the generator overlooked various
bad naming situations:
- types, commands, and events need a valid name
- enum members must be valid names, when combined with prefix
- union and alternate branches cannot be marked optional
Valid upstream names match [a-zA-Z][a-zA-Z0-9_-]*; valid downstream
names match __[a-zA-Z][a-zA-Z0-9._-]*. Enumerations match the
weaker [a-zA-Z0-9._-]+ (in part thanks to QKeyCode picking an enum
that starts with a digit, which we can't change now due to
backwards compatibility). Rather than call out three separate
regex, this patch just uses a broader combination that allows both
upstream and downstream names, as well as a small hack that
realizes that any enum name is merely a suffix to an already valid
name prefix (that is, any enum name is valid if prepending _ fits
the normal rules).
We could reject new enumeration names beginning with a digit by
whitelisting existing exceptions. We could also be stricter
about the distinction between upstream names (no leading
underscore, no use of dot) and downstream (mandatory leading
double underscore), but it is probably not worth the bother.
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>
|
