Revision tags: v7.0.0, v7.0.0-rc4, v7.0.0-rc3, v7.0.0-rc2, v7.0.0-rc1, v7.0.0-rc0, v6.1.1, v6.2.0, v6.2.0-rc4, v6.2.0-rc3, v6.2.0-rc2, v6.2.0-rc1, v6.2.0-rc0, v6.0.1, v6.1.0, v6.1.0-rc4, v6.1.0-rc3, v6.1.0-rc2, v6.1.0-rc1, v6.1.0-rc0, v6.0.0, v6.0.0-rc5, v6.0.0-rc4, v6.0.0-rc3, v6.0.0-rc2, v6.0.0-rc1, v6.0.0-rc0, v5.2.0, v5.2.0-rc4, v5.2.0-rc3, v5.2.0-rc2, v5.2.0-rc1, v5.2.0-rc0, v5.0.1, v5.1.0, v5.1.0-rc3, v5.1.0-rc2, v5.1.0-rc1, v5.1.0-rc0, v4.2.1, v5.0.0, v5.0.0-rc4, v5.0.0-rc3, v5.0.0-rc2, v5.0.0-rc1, v5.0.0-rc0, v4.2.0, v4.2.0-rc5, v4.2.0-rc4, v4.2.0-rc3, v4.2.0-rc2, v4.1.1, v4.2.0-rc1, v4.2.0-rc0, v4.0.1, v3.1.1.1, v4.1.0, v4.1.0-rc5, v4.1.0-rc4, v3.1.1, v4.1.0-rc3, v4.1.0-rc2, v4.1.0-rc1, v4.1.0-rc0, v4.0.0, v4.0.0-rc4, v3.0.1, v4.0.0-rc3, v4.0.0-rc2, v4.0.0-rc1, v4.0.0-rc0, v3.1.0, v3.1.0-rc5, v3.1.0-rc4, v3.1.0-rc3, v3.1.0-rc2, v3.1.0-rc1, v3.1.0-rc0, v3.0.0, v3.0.0-rc4, v2.12.1, v3.0.0-rc3, v3.0.0-rc2, v3.0.0-rc1, v3.0.0-rc0, v2.11.2, v2.12.0, v2.12.0-rc4, v2.12.0-rc3, v2.12.0-rc2, v2.12.0-rc1, v2.12.0-rc0, v2.11.1, v2.10.2, v2.11.0, v2.11.0-rc5, v2.11.0-rc4, v2.11.0-rc3, v2.11.0-rc2, v2.11.0-rc1, v2.11.0-rc0, v2.10.1, v2.9.1, v2.10.0, v2.10.0-rc4, v2.10.0-rc3, v2.10.0-rc2, v2.10.0-rc1, v2.10.0-rc0, v2.8.1.1, v2.9.0, v2.9.0-rc5, v2.9.0-rc4, v2.9.0-rc3, v2.8.1, v2.9.0-rc2, v2.9.0-rc1 |
|
#
87c16dce |
| 15-Mar-2017 |
Markus Armbruster <armbru@redhat.com> |
qapi: Back out doc comments added just to please qapi.py
This reverts commit 3313b61's changes to tests/qapi-schema/, except for tests/qapi-schema/doc-*.
We could keep some of these doc comments to
qapi: Back out doc comments added just to please qapi.py
This reverts commit 3313b61's changes to tests/qapi-schema/, except for tests/qapi-schema/doc-*.
We could keep some of these doc comments to serve as positive test cases. However, they don't actually add to what we get from doc comment use in actual schemas, as we we don't test output matches expectations, and don't systematically cover doc comment features. Proper positive test coverage would be nice.
Signed-off-by: Markus Armbruster <armbru@redhat.com> Reviewed-by: Eric Blake <eblake@redhat.com> Message-Id: <1489582656-31133-4-git-send-email-armbru@redhat.com>
show more ...
|
Revision tags: v2.9.0-rc0 |
|
#
3313b612 |
| 13-Jan-2017 |
Marc-André Lureau <marcandre.lureau@redhat.com> |
qapi: add qapi2texi script
As the name suggests, the qapi2texi script converts JSON QAPI description into a texi file suitable for different target formats (info/man/txt/pdf/html...).
It parses the
qapi: add qapi2texi script
As the name suggests, the qapi2texi script converts JSON QAPI description into a texi file suitable for different target formats (info/man/txt/pdf/html...).
It parses the following kind of blocks:
Free-form:
## # = Section # == Subsection # # Some text foo with *emphasis* # 1. with a list # 2. like that # # And some code: # | $ echo foo # | -> do this # | <- get that # ##
Symbol description:
## # @symbol: # # Symbol body ditto ergo sum. Foo bar # baz ding. # # @param1: the frob to frobnicate # @param2: #optional how hard to frobnicate # # Returns: the frobnicated frob. # If frob isn't frobnicatable, GenericError. # # Since: version # Notes: notes, comments can have # - itemized list # - like this # # Example: # # -> { "execute": "quit" } # <- { "return": {} } # ##
That's roughly following the following EBNF grammar:
api_comment = "##\n" comment "##\n" comment = freeform_comment | symbol_comment freeform_comment = { "# " text "\n" | "#\n" } symbol_comment = "# @" name ":\n" { member | tag_section | freeform_comment } member = "# @" name ':' [ text ] "\n" freeform_comment tag_section = "# " ( "Returns:", "Since:", "Note:", "Notes:", "Example:", "Examples:" ) [ text ] "\n" freeform_comment text = free text with markup
Note that the grammar is ambiguous: a line "# @foo:\n" can be parsed both as freeform_comment and as symbol_comment. The actual parser recognizes symbol_comment.
See docs/qapi-code-gen.txt for more details.
Deficiencies and limitations: - the generated QMP documentation includes internal types - union type support is lacking - type information is lacking in generated documentation - doc comment error message positions are imprecise, they point to the beginning of the comment. - a few minor issues, all marked TODO/FIXME in the code
Signed-off-by: Marc-André Lureau <marcandre.lureau@redhat.com> Message-Id: <20170113144135.5150-16-marcandre.lureau@redhat.com> Reviewed-by: Markus Armbruster <armbru@redhat.com> [test-qapi.py tweaked to avoid trailing empty lines in .out] Signed-off-by: Markus Armbruster <armbru@redhat.com>
show more ...
|
Revision tags: v2.7.1, v2.8.0, v2.8.0-rc4, v2.8.0-rc3, v2.8.0-rc2, v2.8.0-rc1, v2.8.0-rc0, v2.6.2, v2.7.0, v2.7.0-rc5, v2.7.0-rc4, v2.6.1, v2.7.0-rc3, v2.7.0-rc2, v2.7.0-rc1, v2.7.0-rc0, v2.6.0, v2.5.1.1, v2.6.0-rc5, v2.6.0-rc4, v2.6.0-rc3, v2.6.0-rc2, v2.6.0-rc1, v2.6.0-rc0, v2.5.1, v2.5.0, v2.5.0-rc4, v2.5.0-rc3, v2.5.0-rc2, v2.5.0-rc1, v2.5.0-rc0, v2.4.1, v2.4.0.1, v2.4.0, v2.3.1, v2.4.0-rc4, v2.4.0-rc3, v2.4.0-rc2, v2.4.0-rc1, v2.4.0-rc0 |
|
#
0545f6b8 |
| 04-May-2015 |
Eric Blake <eblake@redhat.com> |
qapi: Better error messages for bad expressions
The previous commit demonstrated that the generator overlooked some fairly basic broken expressions: - missing metataype - metatype key has a non-stri
qapi: Better error messages for bad expressions
The previous commit demonstrated that the generator overlooked some fairly basic broken expressions: - missing metataype - metatype key has a non-string value - unknown key in relation to the metatype - conflicting metatype (this patch treats the second metatype as an unknown key of the first key visited, which is not necessarily the first key the user typed)
Add check_keys to cover these situations, and update testcases to match. A couple other tests (enum-missing-data, indented-expr) had to change since the validation added here occurs so early. Conversely, changes to ident-with-escape results show that we still have problems where our handling of escape sequences differs from true JSON, which will matter down the road if we allow arbitrary default string values for optional parameters (but for now is not too bad, as we currently can avoid unicode escaping as we don't need to represent anything beyond C identifier material).
While valid .json files won't trigger any of these cases, we might as well be nicer to developers that make a typo while trying to add new QAPI code.
Signed-off-by: Eric Blake <eblake@redhat.com> Reviewed-by: Markus Armbruster <armbru@redhat.com> Signed-off-by: Markus Armbruster <armbru@redhat.com>
show more ...
|
#
9050c65b |
| 04-May-2015 |
Eric Blake <eblake@redhat.com> |
qapi: Add some expr tests
Demonstrate that the qapi generator doesn't deal well with expressions that aren't up to par. Later patches will improve the expected results as the generator is made stric
qapi: Add some expr tests
Demonstrate that the qapi generator doesn't deal well with expressions that aren't up to par. Later patches will improve the expected results as the generator is made stricter. Only a few of the the added tests actually behave sanely at rejecting obvious problems or demonstrating success.
Note that in some cases, we reject bad QAPI merely because our pseudo-JSON parser does not yet know how to parse numbers. This series does not address that, but when a later series adds support for numeric defaults of integer fields, the testsuite will ensure that we don't lose the error (and hopefully that the error message quality is improved).
Signed-off-by: Eric Blake <eblake@redhat.com> Reviewed-by: Markus Armbruster <armbru@redhat.com> Signed-off-by: Markus Armbruster <armbru@redhat.com>
show more ...
|