Hi, On Thu, Sep 14, 2023 at 03:50:23PM +0200, Markus Armbruster wrote: > Victor Toso <victort...@redhat.com> writes: > > > Example output has a comment embedded in the array. Remove it. > > The end result is a list of size 1. > > > > Signed-off-by: Victor Toso <victort...@redhat.com> > > --- > > qapi/rocker.json | 3 +-- > > 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 2 deletions(-) > > > > diff --git a/qapi/rocker.json b/qapi/rocker.json > > index 31ce0b36f6..858e4f4a45 100644 > > --- a/qapi/rocker.json > > +++ b/qapi/rocker.json > > @@ -249,8 +249,7 @@ > > # "cookie": 0, > > # "action": {"goto-tbl": 10}, > > # "mask": {"in-pport": 4294901760} > > -# }, > > -# {...more...}, > > +# } > > # ]} > > ## > > { 'command': 'query-rocker-of-dpa-flows', > > The schema patches in this series fix typos, except for this patch and > the next one, which drop "more of the same omitted for brevity" text. I > believe you drop the text because it doesn't parse as JSON.
That's correct. > Fine if the example still make sense afterwards. Do they? It depends what you mean by making sense. I did not setup rocker to do this query and copied a real example. I think the real example would have a list of size more than one. So, if you think about real examples, it might not make sense. If we talk about clarifying they API, I think it is reasonable. > Shortening examples is a reasonable thing to do. Perhaps we > should adopt a conventional way to do it, and teach the > proposed generator to cope with it. What do you think? Yep, I like it. In reality, I did not do this change in v1 but it was suggested by Daniel that the end result of introducing this generator would be to have it run without errors, so I shortened as a simple way to fix it. So, should we instead move forward with another convention for comments inside the examples? This way we could still have a list size 1 with this patch but it would be clear that the expectation is a bigger list. Cheers, Victor
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature