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

Re: [libvirt] [PATCH] virsh: Improve the error for snapshot-list



On 10/22/2012 07:44 AM, Martin Kletzander wrote:
> On 10/22/2012 03:15 PM, Osier Yang wrote:
>> It reports error "roots and --from are exclusive" even "--current"
>> is specified with "--roots", but no "--from".
>> ---
>>  tools/virsh-snapshot.c |    3 ++-
>>  1 files changed, 2 insertions(+), 1 deletions(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/tools/virsh-snapshot.c b/tools/virsh-snapshot.c
>> index b828371..6dd8bf2 100644
>> --- a/tools/virsh-snapshot.c
>> +++ b/tools/virsh-snapshot.c
>> @@ -1197,7 +1197,8 @@ cmdSnapshotList(vshControl *ctl, const vshCmd *cmd)
>>          }
>>          if (from) {
>>              vshError(ctl, "%s",
>> -                     _("--roots and --from are mutually exclusive"));
>> +                     _("--roots is mutually exclusive with either "
>> +                       "--from or --current"));
>>              goto cleanup;
>>          }
>>          flags |= VIR_DOMAIN_SNAPSHOT_LIST_ROOTS;
>>
> 
> And is --from and --current also mutually exclusive?

--current implies a particular point to list from, so yes, mixing
--current and --from should error out, as should mixing --current and
--roots, so this is really just a bug in improving error message quality.

>  If yes, wouldn't
> it be better to say something like: "--roots, --current and --from are
> mutually exclusive"?  Or, similarly to the idea behind vshLookupSnapshot
> 
> if (exclusive && current && snapname) {
>     vshError(ctl, _("--%s and --current are mutually exclusive"), arg);
>     return -1;
> }
> 
> If it's not the case, than ACK.

Indeed, I think we can do better with a v2.

-- 
Eric Blake   eblake redhat com    +1-919-301-3266
Libvirt virtualization library http://libvirt.org

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature


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