On Thu, Oct 03, 2013 at 12:44:20PM +0200, Michal Privoznik wrote:
On 02.10.2013 20:08, Daniel P. Berrange wrote:
> On Wed, Oct 02, 2013 at 11:42:13AM -0600, Eric Blake wrote:
>> On 10/02/2013 11:09 AM, Michal Privoznik wrote:
>>> Right now, we are testing qemuMonitorSystemPowerdown instead of
>>> qemuMonitorJSONSystemPowerdown. It makes no harm, as both functions have
>>> the same header and the former is just a wrapper over the latter. But we
>>> should be consistent as we're testing the JSON functions only in here.
>>>
>>> Signed-off-by: Michal Privoznik <mprivozn(a)redhat.com>
>>> ---
>>> tests/qemumonitorjsontest.c | 2 +-
>>> 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
>>
>> Actually, I think we should do the opposite, and test only the wrapper
>> functions that the rest of qemu_driver.c and friends will be calling.
>> For example, testQemuMonitorJSONGetVersion() calls into
>> qemuMonitorGetVersion, not qemuMonitorJSONGetVersion.
>
> Well this test suite was specifically targetting only the JSON monitor
> impl, not the text mode impl, so calling the JSON functions is
> right IMHO.
>
> There is separate testing for the text mode monitor
>
> Daniel
>
Does this mean ACK, esp. if other patches calling JSON functions were acked?
Yes, sorry, ACK
Daniel
--
|:
http://berrange.com -o-
http://www.flickr.com/photos/dberrange/ :|
|:
http://libvirt.org -o-
http://virt-manager.org :|
|:
http://autobuild.org -o-
http://search.cpan.org/~danberr/ :|
|:
http://entangle-photo.org -o-
http://live.gnome.org/gtk-vnc :|