<html><body> <tt>libvirt-cim-bounces@redhat.com wrote on 2008-04-03 00:34:25: > GY> With the changed indication_tester, I think maybe it's better to > GY> resubmit this set. Of course, the same as former. > > Okay, I copied the indication_tester.py into the library and was able > to run the indication test successfully. Very cool. > > What are your plans for other indication tests? We definitely need to > test at least all three of the lifecycle indications in the positive > case. > </tt> <tt> As you said before, it's better to subscribe to a superclass and</tt> <tt> get all three of the lifecycle indications. So I prepare to</tt> <tt> change the test case do the setup for each type in a single file.</tt> <tt> Also, the superclass named "CIM_Indication", right?</tt> <tt> > How about a test that subscribes to a Xen indication and then creates > a KVM guest to make sure that it doesn't get the KVM indication? > </tt> <tt> You refer to the negative test case to Xen indication? </tt> <tt> > -- > Dan Smith > IBM Linux Technology Center > Open Hypervisor Team > email: danms@us.ibm.com > [attachment "attjivxz.dat" deleted by Guo Lian Yun/China/IBM] > _______________________________________________ > Libvirt-cim mailing list > Libvirt-cim@redhat.com > <a href="https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/libvirt-cim">https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/libvirt-cim</a></tt> </body></html>