From 7308f9d5a4da8ea4e2a9a0748ceb0921333c11f4 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: Aleksandr Nogikh <nogikh@google.com>
Date: Wed, 11 Sep 2024 16:04:43 +0200
Subject: prog: allow deeper nesting of conditional fields patching

There is a totally valid situation when we could be recursively patching
conditional fields: if by changing a field's value we insert new
resource constructor calls. It's a bug to skip conditional field
patching for them.

Allow up to 2 nested patchConditionalFields() calls and panic if there
happen to be more.

Add a test that reproduces the situation described above.
---
 sys/test/expressions.txt | 23 ++++++++++++++++++++++-
 1 file changed, 22 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)

(limited to 'sys/test')

diff --git a/sys/test/expressions.txt b/sys/test/expressions.txt
index 1c1cfbca5..500bdec20 100644
--- a/sys/test/expressions.txt
+++ b/sys/test/expressions.txt
@@ -16,7 +16,28 @@ conditional_struct {
 	f2	int64	(if[value[mask] & FIELD_FLAG2])
 } [packed]
 
-test$conditional_struct(a ptr[in, conditional_struct])
+resource some_res[int32]
+
+test$conditional_struct(a ptr[in, conditional_struct]) some_res
+
+# To generate this call, we need to recursively also generate a test$conditional_struct() call.
+
+needs_some_res {
+	switch	int32
+	field	some_res	(if[value[switch] != 0])
+}
+
+resource some_res_nested[int32]
+test$conditional_struct_nested(a ptr[in, needs_some_res]) some_res_nested
+
+# .. and one more level.
+
+needs_some_res_nested {
+	switch	int32
+	field	some_res_nested	(if[value[switch] != 0])
+}
+
+test$conditional_struct_nested2(a ptr[in, needs_some_res_nested])
 
 parent_conditions {
 	mask	int32
-- 
cgit mrf-deployment