On 2/18/20 12:39 PM, Ján Tomko wrote:
On Sun, Feb 16, 2020 at 11:22:54PM -0500, Laine Stump wrote:
This is a very simple thing to parse and format, but needs to be done in 4 places, so two trivial utility functions have been made that can be called from all the higher level parser/formatters:
<domain><interface> <domain><interface><actual> (only in domain status) <network> <networkport>
Signed-off-by: Laine Stump <laine@redhat.com> --- docs/schemas/domaincommon.rng | 3 + docs/schemas/network.rng | 3 + docs/schemas/networkcommon.rng | 11 ++++ docs/schemas/networkport.rng | 3 + src/conf/domain_conf.c | 19 ++++++ src/conf/domain_conf.h | 4 ++ src/conf/network_conf.c | 32 ++++++++++ src/conf/network_conf.h | 9 +++ src/conf/virnetworkportdef.c | 3 + src/conf/virnetworkportdef.h | 1 + src/libvirt_private.syms | 1 + tests/networkxml2xmlin/isolated-ports.xml | 7 +++ tests/networkxml2xmlout/isolated-ports.xml | 7 +++ tests/networkxml2xmltest.c | 1 + tests/qemuxml2argvdata/net-isolated-port.xml | 34 ++++++++++ .../net-isolated-port.x86_64-latest.xml | 63 +++++++++++++++++++ tests/qemuxml2xmltest.c | 1 + 17 files changed, 202 insertions(+) create mode 100644 tests/networkxml2xmlin/isolated-ports.xml create mode 100644 tests/networkxml2xmlout/isolated-ports.xml create mode 100644 tests/qemuxml2argvdata/net-isolated-port.xml create mode 100644 tests/qemuxml2xmloutdata/net-isolated-port.x86_64-latest.xml
Not a fan of multi-word elements, because they bring up our inconsistency in using camelCase vs snake_case.
Yeah, it always bothers me when I see a multiword element or attribute for that reason. I always use camelCase because I remember asking about which is preferred > 10 years ago and being told that we wanted to have camelCase in libvirt XML. That could even be a false memory, but it has always stuck with me.
But I assume you chose the name to make it compatible with all four containing elements.
Would something like: <networkport> <port isolated='yes'/> </networkport> look too odd?
ummmm.... God I *HATE* coming up with element and attribute names! (That's the only response I can think of right now since it's late in the day. Let me sleep on it, but in the end I was expecting, even *hoping* someone would object to portOptions and propose an alternative, and yours doesn't really sound any *worse* than mine, so it might be worthwhile to use it just so I wouldn't have to shoulder the blame :-)
Code-wise: Reviewed-by: Ján Tomko <jtomko@redhat.com>
Jano