Re: [PATCH v2 07/11] qapi: fix example of query-rocker-of-dpa-flows command

[Daniel P . Berrangé]

On Thu, Sep 14, 2023 at 04:01:55PM +0200, Victor Toso wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> On Thu, Sep 14, 2023 at 03:50:23PM +0200, Markus Armbruster wrote:
> > Victor Toso <victortoso@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 <victortoso@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.

Personally I'd say if a field is a list, then the example should
contain 2 elements, just to make it a little more obvious at a
glance, as opposed to relying on spottnig the []. But that's not
a massively strong argument.

With regards,
Daniel
-- 
|: https://berrange.com      -o-    https://www.flickr.com/photos/dberrange :|
|: https://libvirt.org         -o-            https://fstop138.berrange.com :|
|: https://entangle-photo.org    -o-    https://www.instagram.com/dberrange :|