On 4/18/23 9:43 AM, Ján Tomko wrote:
On a Tuesday in 2023, Andrea Bolognani wrote:
On Tue, Apr 18, 2023 at 03:19:45PM +0200, Ján Tomko wrote:
On a Tuesday in 2023, Andrea Bolognani wrote:
That's already the case in practice, but it's a better experience for the user if we reject this configuration outright instead of silently ignoring part of it.
Signed-off-by: Andrea Bolognani <abologna@redhat.com> --- src/conf/domain_validate.c | 9 +++++++++ ...t-user-slirp-portforward.x86_64-latest.err | 1 + .../net-user-slirp-portforward.xml | 20 +++++++++++++++++++ tests/qemuxml2argvtest.c | 1 + 4 files changed, 31 insertions(+) create mode 100644 tests/qemuxml2argvdata/net-user-slirp-portforward.x86_64-latest.err create mode 100644 tests/qemuxml2argvdata/net-user-slirp-portforward.xml
Reviewed-by: Ján Tomko <jtomko@redhat.com>
Thanks for the review!
Right before pushing, I realized that VIR_ERR_INTERNAL_ERROR is probably not the best fit for this scenario. Are you okay with me squashing in the changes below?
Yes.
VIR_ERR_CONFIG_UNSUPPORTED = 67, /* unsupported configuration construct (Since: 0.7.3) */
We also use VIR_ERR_XML_ERROR in similar cases, but I'm not sure whether it's more fitting, given its description:
VIR_ERR_XML_ERROR = 27, /* an XML description is not well formed or broken (Since: 0.1.1) */
While I think we probably have too many different error categories (even though often *none* of them is exactly right for a given circumstance), in this case CONFIG_UNSUPPORTED is better, since (IMO) XML_ERROR should only be used for something that is *never* valid under any cirsumstance (I guess that could also be interpreted in many ways, though) BTW, an alternate method of fixing this problem would have been to add <portForward> support to the slirp code (which is actually item 406 on my personal todo list :-P)