On 5/24/22 13:50, Boris Fiuczynski wrote:
> On 5/23/22 3:08 PM, Michal Privoznik wrote:
>> @@ -6709,21 +6709,13 @@ static int
>> virDomainDeviceAddressParseXML(xmlNodePtr address,
>> virDomainDeviceInfo *info)
>> {
>> - g_autofree char *type = virXMLPropString(address, "type");
>> -
>> - if (type) {
>> - if ((info->type = virDomainDeviceAddressTypeFromString(type))
>> <= 0) {
>> - virReportError(VIR_ERR_CONFIG_UNSUPPORTED,
>> - _("unknown address type '%s'"), type);
>> - return -1;
>> - }
>> - } else {
>> - virReportError(VIR_ERR_INTERNAL_ERROR,
>> - "%s", _("No type specified for device address"));
>> + if (virXMLPropEnum(address, "type",
>> + virDomainDeviceAddressTypeFromString,
>> + VIR_XML_PROP_NONZERO | VIR_XML_PROP_REQUIRED,
>> + &info->type) < 0)
>> return -1;
>> - }
>>
>
> For my taste the resulting generic error messages look a bit different
> and besides the different message texts the error numbers change:
>
> virReportError(VIR_ERR_CONFIG_UNSUPPORTED,
> _("unknown address type '%s'"), type);
> turns into
> virReportError(VIR_ERR_XML_ERROR,
> _("Invalid value for attribute '%s' in element '%s':
> '%s'."),
> name, node->name, NULLSTR(tmp));
>
> and
>
> virReportError(VIR_ERR_INTERNAL_ERROR,
> "%s", _("No type specified for device address"));
> turns into
> virReportError(VIR_ERR_XML_ERROR,
> _("Missing required attribute '%s' in element '%s'"),
> name, node->name);
>
> Don't changes like this have an impact on the user?
>
They do. We don't really guarantee error codes stability though. But
okay, let me postpone pushing these until there's a broader agreement.
Michal
