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
