On Sat, 03 Oct 2009 12:04:57 +0200 Avi Kivity <avi@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On 10/01/2009 11:13 PM, Luiz Capitulino wrote: > >> If we're going to support the protocol for 0.12, I'd like to most of the > >> code merged by the end of October. > >> > > Four weeks.. Not so much time, but let's try. > > > > There are two major issues that may delay QMP. > > > > Firstly, we are still on the infrastructure/design phase, which > > is natural to take time. Maybe when handlers start getting converted > > en masse things will be faster. > > > > I sure hope so. Maybe someone can pitch in if not. I've written a TODO list if someone is willing to help: http://tinyurl.com/ya7l6bo > > Secondly: testing. I have a very ugly python script to test the > > already converted handlers. The problem is not only the ugliness, > > the right way to do this would be to use kvm-autotest. So, I was > > planning to take a detailed look at it and perhaps start writing > > tests for QMP right when each handler is converted. Right Thing, > > but takes time. > > > > I think this could be done by having autotest use two monitors, one with > the machine protocol and one with the human protocol, trying first the > machine protocol and falling back if the command is not supported. Yes, sounds a good idea. > Hopefully we can get the autotest people to work on it so we parallelize > development. They'll also give user-oriented feedback which can be > valuable. I will talk to them about that. > Are you using a standard json parser with your test script? That's an > additional validation. I'm using Python's json module, but I could run one of the checkers listed in the json's page for each test, before the Python's module kicks in. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe kvm" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
