[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]

Re: [libvirt] [PATCH 0/8] Add XML validation to the APIs

On Thu, Nov 20, 2014 at 01:43:29PM +0000, Daniel P. Berrange wrote:
On Thu, Nov 20, 2014 at 12:02:12PM +0100, Martin Kletzander wrote:
On Wed, Nov 19, 2014 at 12:51:22PM +0000, Daniel P. Berrange wrote:
>On Wed, Nov 19, 2014 at 09:45:39AM +0000, Daniel P. Berrange wrote:
>>On Wed, Nov 19, 2014 at 08:23:22AM +0100, Martin Kletzander wrote:
>>> On Tue, Nov 18, 2014 at 05:59:47PM +0000, Daniel P. Berrange wrote:
>>> >This proof of concept patch extends the virDomainDefineXML
>>> >and virDomainCreateXML APIs so that they can validate
>>> >the user supplied XML document against the RNG schemas.
>>> >
>>> >The virsh command will enable validation by default, it
>>> >must be turned off with --skip-validation if desired.
>>> >
>>> >This series is not complete
>>> >
>>> >- The network, interface, storage pool, etc APIs are
>>> >  not wired up to support validation.
>>> >- Only the QEMU virt driver is wired up to validate
>>> >- The virsh edit command is not wired up to validate
>>> >
>>> >It is enough to demonstrate it working with 'virsh define'
>>> >and the QEMU driver though.
>>> >
>>> >The biggest problem I see is the really awful error
>>> >messages we get back from libxml2 when validation
>>> >fails :-( They are essentially useless :-(
>>> >
>>> This is one of the things why I'm not convinced this work is worth
>>> it.  It may be nice if we tell the user their XML is invalid instead
>>> of silently losing information.  But error message similar to "invalid
>>> element in interleave" doesn't help much when you are adding 100-line
>>> XML.  There are some better validators, but requiring those would be
>>> too cumbersome.
>>At least when using 'virsh edit' you would know what element you
>>just changed / added. So if you got get a generic 'validation failed'
>>error you have a pretty good idea of where in teh document you made
>>the mistake. So I think it'd be useful in that scenario. The error
>>reporting is more of a problem for the apps where they're passing in
>>a big XML document to define the guest and basically anything could
>>be wrong.
>So, it seems not all of the error messages are so awful. It does a bad
>job of reporting unknown elements, but if you have an unknown attribute
>it does better:
> "Invalid attribute foo for element name"
>If you give an invalid value for an attribute which is an enum it
>is semi-usefull
> "Element domain failed to validate attributes"
>So this does seem somewhat more useful to have in libvirt

As I said, I'm not against this, I agree that it will still be useful.

If you meant this as an RFC, then I misunderstood that and I should've
just wrote that as an initial PoC it's fine with me :)

Do you want me to finish the review?

Actually if you want to review patches 4, 5, 6, 7 that would be useful.
Those are general refactoring of the way we handle flags with the XML
parsers/formatters. The 7th patch was awful to create and will be a
rebase nightmare if we leave it too long.

ACK to 4-7, just read that 7/8 before pushing.  Unfortunately it will
need a bigger rebase, still :(


Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]