On Thu, Dec 17, 2015 at 02:18:49PM +0100, Michal Privoznik wrote: > On 17.12.2015 13:56, Ján Tomko wrote: > > Allow <name> and <uuid> anywhere under <domain>, not just at the top: > > > > error:XML document failed to validate against schema: Unable to validate > > doc against /usr/share/libvirt/schemas/domain.rng > > Expecting an element name, got nothing > > Invalid sequence in interleave > > Element domain failed to validate content > > > > Introduced with the first RelaxNG schema in commit c642103. > > > > https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1292131 > > --- > > docs/schemas/domaincommon.rng | 2 +- > > 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-) > > > > diff --git a/docs/schemas/domaincommon.rng b/docs/schemas/domaincommon.rng > > index 4804c69..01d99f0 100644 > > --- a/docs/schemas/domaincommon.rng > > +++ b/docs/schemas/domaincommon.rng > > @@ -30,8 +30,8 @@ > > <define name="domain"> > > <element name="domain"> > > <ref name="hvs"/> > > - <ref name="ids"/> > > <interleave> > > + <ref name="ids"/> > > <optional> > > <ref name="title"/> > > </optional> > > > > This is rather tricky. I'm not against the change, but 'ids' is defined as: > > <optional attribute/> > <interleave> > <elem name/> > <optional elem uuid/> > </interleave> > > Thing is, if "ids" would ever get second in the master <interleave/> > shown in your patch, the attribute might refer to a different element. > But I guess that would fire plenty of failed cases in our test suite, right? > > ACK then. IMHO, we could just inline the 'ids' content in this caller - there's no real benefit in having a separate "ids" define, and the clear downside that you mention Regards, Daniel -- |: http://berrange.com -o- http://www.flickr.com/photos/dberrange/ :| |: http://libvirt.org -o- http://virt-manager.org :| |: http://autobuild.org -o- http://search.cpan.org/~danberr/ :| |: http://entangle-photo.org -o- http://live.gnome.org/gtk-vnc :| -- libvir-list mailing list libvir-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/libvir-list