On 05/21/2015 06:14 PM, Daniel P. Berrange wrote:
On Thu, May 21, 2015 at 05:52:01PM +0800, lhuang wrote:
> On 05/21/2015 03:46 PM, Peter Krempa wrote:
>> On Thu, May 21, 2015 at 13:08:12 +0800, Luyao Huang wrote:
>>>
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1223631
>>>
>>> When set a memory device in the xml, <sysinfo> in xml will be lost.
>>> Because we forgot restore ctxt->node to the oldnode after parse memory
>>> device, this will make the parse function after virDomainMemoryDefParseXML
>>> cannot find a node they need when parse a full xml(virDomainDefParseXML).
>> The commit message is really hard to read.
> Okay, I will pay more attention about this. Maybe use the exist similar
> commit message as an example will be a good choice.
>
>>> Signed-off-by: Luyao Huang <lhuang(a)redhat.com>
>>> ---
>>> src/conf/domain_conf.c | 1 +
>>> 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+)
>>>
>>> diff --git a/src/conf/domain_conf.c b/src/conf/domain_conf.c
>>> index bfdc94e..7ddc1ea 100644
>>> --- a/src/conf/domain_conf.c
>>> +++ b/src/conf/domain_conf.c
>>> @@ -11828,6 +11828,7 @@ virDomainMemoryDefParseXML(xmlNodePtr memdevNode,
>>> if (virDomainDeviceInfoParseXML(memdevNode, NULL, &def->info,
flags) < 0)
>>> goto error;
>>> + ctxt->node = save;
>>> return def;
>> A test case is missing. The bugzilla link contains one so I'll add it.
> Oh, I see, I hesitated about if need introduce a unit test when i fix this
> issue.
> Seems this is a rule about which case need a new test, isn't it? :)
Our rule is that any addition to the XML parser needs to have a test case
added - especially true if the addition is fixing a parsing bug :-)
Oh, get it, i will record it to some place as i have a bad memory :) ,
thank you Daniel