Re: [Libvir] PATCH: Cleanup generator & force build fail on missing APIs

On Mon, Jan 21, 2008 at 02:02:28PM +0000, Daniel P. Berrange wrote: > On Mon, Jan 21, 2008 at 04:14:15AM -0500, Daniel Veillard wrote: > > On Sun, Jan 20, 2008 at 05:29:06PM +0000, Daniel P. Berrange wrote: > > > The python generator will happily ignore functions it can't handle and > > > pretend everything completed without error. This leads to the situation > > > where we add new APis to C library and no one ever notices that they > > > are missing from the python until months later. This requires that my > > > previous patch be applied first to implement the missing APIs we already > > > have :-) > > > > > > This patch causes the generator to return a non-zero exit status if there > > > are any APIs marked as FAILED. It will also explicitly print out their > > > names so its clear what is missing. In doing this I added a bunch more > > > functions to the skip list - ones that we already manually wrote. > > > > > > It also removes the manually written virCloseConnect/virDomainFree/ > > > virNetworkFree C code, since the generated code is just fine. > > > > > > Finally, it makes all manually written C functions static for consistency > > > > Okay, the default behaviour prints the number of functions which failed > > (and the number skipped) but now that we have full coverage, yes this is > > a good thing to do. Note however that you're likely to still see the problem > > of late discovery of missing bindings because: > > - people submitting patches are likely to just run 'make' > > - people applying it will do the same. > > - only on 'make rebuild' in docs or when preparing the release > > will we hit the docs/libvirt-api.xml , leading to the subsequent > > error on a missing part. > > - and I'm afraid I will be the one hitting them ... at time of release > > i.e. at the worse moment with a make exiting on an error. > > Never fear - this is exactly the sort of problem the nightly autobuild > is intended to catch - it'll fail the night after commit and send an > email alert so we can fix it the very next day - hopefully long before > release. okay but still asynchronous :-) Since we don't often extend the public API you're probably right that it's sufficient.