On 5/16/22 12:46, Darragh Bailey wrote: > > On Mon 16 May 2022, 10:10 Michal Prívozník, <mpriv...@redhat.com > <mailto:mpriv...@redhat.com>> wrote: > > On 5/14/22 21:23, Darragh Bailey wrote: > > > > On Fri, 13 May 2022 at 00:17, Darragh Bailey > <daragh.bai...@gmail.com <mailto:daragh.bai...@gmail.com> > > <mailto:daragh.bai...@gmail.com <mailto:daragh.bai...@gmail.com>>> > wrote: > > > > Unfortunately trying to call this via ruby-libvirt doesn't appear to > > behave as expected. It appears that if I add an nvram element > without a > > loader element to the os block, the following code block will execute > > without issue but also without changing the domain XML: > > I think that's kind of expected. If you take a look how libvirt parses > that part of XML: > > > https://gitlab.com/libvirt/libvirt/-/blob/master/src/conf/domain_conf.c#L18257 > > <https://gitlab.com/libvirt/libvirt/-/blob/master/src/conf/domain_conf.c#L18257> > > if no <loader/> is found then the function exits early without looking > at <nvram/> at all. It kind of makes sense - what good does nvram do > without loader? > > > I don't know, I realised that there was a bug in our vagrant-libvirt in > that it should be checking for both loader and NVRAM config settings to > be passed in if the end user was updating the machine config. And > subsequently set both elements or neither. > > However I was not expecting the silent discarding of the XML element and > instead to get an error saying that an nvram XML element without a > loader XML element is invalid and for the entire request to be rejected. > Basically that the provided XML domain definition was invalid. > > Based on the previous explanation of how the define_domain_xml should > work along with the response on the example reproducer this seems like a > bug. > > Does your reply mean this is expected behaviour? Or were you looking for > clarification on what I expected to see?
I mean, fixing this particular problem is trivial. But what's not as trivial is fixing ALL occurrences of this problem (where an attribute/element is ignored because of something we've parsed earlier). Mostly because we don't know what those are. BTW: Have you spotted the other demonstration of this problem (in the same function)? Yes, if fw autoselection is enabled (<os firmware='something'>) then <nvram template=''/> is ignored. Anyway, there used to be an unwritten agreement with users that they get XML of a domain they just defined to see if it contains everything they want. This is used to be because different drivers support different features. But I guess it's hard to argue with an unwritten rule esp. if it's not known to everybody. Michal
