On 5/24/22 13:50, Boris Fiuczynski wrote:
On 5/23/22 3:08 PM, Michal Privoznik wrote:
> @@ -6709,21 +6709,13 @@ static int
> virDomainDeviceAddressParseXML(xmlNodePtr address,
> virDomainDeviceInfo *info)
> {
> - g_autofree char *type = virXMLPropString(address, "type");
> -
> - if (type) {
> - if ((info->type = virDomainDeviceAddressTypeFromString(type))
> <= 0) {
> - virReportError(VIR_ERR_CONFIG_UNSUPPORTED,
> - _("unknown address type '%s'"), type);
> - return -1;
> - }
> - } else {
> - virReportError(VIR_ERR_INTERNAL_ERROR,
> - "%s", _("No type specified for device
address"));
> + if (virXMLPropEnum(address, "type",
> + virDomainDeviceAddressTypeFromString,
> + VIR_XML_PROP_NONZERO | VIR_XML_PROP_REQUIRED,
> + &info->type) < 0)
> return -1;
> - }
>
For my taste the resulting generic error messages look a bit different
and besides the different message texts the error numbers change:
virReportError(VIR_ERR_CONFIG_UNSUPPORTED,
_("unknown address type '%s'"), type);
turns into
virReportError(VIR_ERR_XML_ERROR,
_("Invalid value for attribute '%s' in element
'%s':
'%s'."),
name, node->name, NULLSTR(tmp));
and
virReportError(VIR_ERR_INTERNAL_ERROR,
"%s", _("No type specified for device address"));
turns into
virReportError(VIR_ERR_XML_ERROR,
_("Missing required attribute '%s' in element
'%s'"),
name, node->name);
Don't changes like this have an impact on the user?
They do. We don't really guarantee error codes stability though. But
okay, let me postpone pushing these until there's a broader agreement.
Michal