Jim Meyering <jim@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > Until now, there has been no coverage of libvirtd's config-processing code. > In adding this, (and esp. in comparing actual/expected diagnostics), > I noticed and fixed a trivial inconsistency: for a parameter expecting > a string value, an invalid values, you'd get a different diagnostic for That should say "given an invalid value, you'd get..." > the four config parameters that are parsed via remoteConfigGetAuth than > for all of the other config parameters (which go through checkType). > This fixes that, too: -- Libvir-list mailing list Libvir-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/libvir-list