On Thu, Jun 23, 2016 at 11:10:26PM +0200, Ján Tomko wrote:
s/raneming/renaming/
/me hides under a rock
On Thu, Jun 23, 2016 at 02:42:59PM -0400, John Ferlan wrote:
>
>
>On 06/22/2016 11:48 AM, Martin Kletzander wrote:
>> It may cause unwanted behaviour (of course, is there any wanted one for
>> that case?) so we should rather disable the possibility of doing so.
>>
>> Resolves:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1320893
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Martin Kletzander <mkletzan(a)redhat.com>
>> ---
>> src/libvirt-domain.c | 2 +-
>> 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/src/libvirt-domain.c b/src/libvirt-domain.c
>> index 508520efd6c5..89a2d7efe972 100644
>> --- a/src/libvirt-domain.c
>> +++ b/src/libvirt-domain.c
>> @@ -8790,7 +8790,7 @@ virDomainRename(virDomainPtr dom,
>>
>> virResetLastError();
>> virCheckDomainReturn(dom, -1);
>> - virCheckNonNullArgGoto(new_name, error);
>> + virCheckNonEmptyStringArgGoto(new_name, error);
>
>Shouldn't both be required? EG We don't want NULL or "" for
new_name,
>right?
>
virCheckNonEmptyStringArgGoto also checks for NULL, so ACK with the typo
fixed.
Yeah, I also rather checked that before sending it, although now I
realized how would you want to check for non-empty string without
checking for NULL, right? =)
Thanks, pushed now.
Jan
>The comments should at least indicate @new_name cannot be NULL or empty
>string.
>
>Although it seems remoteDomainRename could pass along a NULL that it
>doesn't seem virDomainObjListRename would be very happy to STREQ against.
>
>ACK as long as the NonNullArg is replaced...
>
>John