<br><tt><font size=2>libvirt-cim-bounces@redhat.com wrote on 2008-11-14
07:57:14:<br>
<br>
> > > Daisy - did you resolve your problem? I tested
with an F9 rpm using<br>
> > > Pegasus, and this test passed for me.<br>
> > ><br>
> > ><br>
> > This tc passes for Pegasus, but it fails for sfcb.<br>
> > It expects different error code and description for sfcb
and Pegasus.<br>
> > <br>
> > If I change the expr_valuese from 1) to 2), it passes
for sfcb.<br>
> > <br>
> > 1)<br>
> > expr_values = {<br>
> > "invalid_instid_keyvalue" : { 'rc' : pywbem.CIM_ERR_FAILED,<br>
> >
'desc' : 'Unable
to determine\<br>
> > resource type' },<br>
> > }<br>
> > <br>
> > 2)<br>
> > expr_values = {<br>
> > "invalid_instid_keyvalue" : { 'rc' : pywbem.CIM_ERR_NOT_FOUNG,<br>
> >
'desc' : 'No such
instance' },<br>
> > }<br>
> > <br>
> > Maybe we can verify what CIMOM is there on the machine
and check the <br>
> > error information accordingly to fix this issue,<br>
> > but I remember that somebody says it isn't a good idea
to check the <br>
> > cimom type in tc, any better idea?<br>
> > <br>
> > Thanks!<br>
> <br>
> This isn't a difference in CIMOMs. If you run with recent providers
<br>
> with both sfcb and pegasus, the test will fail on systems.<br>
> <br>
> This failure is due to a change in the providers - it's due to changeset
<br>
> 721. So you'll need to branch this test case so that the error
messages <br>
> are appropriate for the given provider revision.</font></tt>
<br>
<br><tt><font size=2> Thanks - Kaitlin.</font></tt>
<br><tt><font size=2> I'll cook up a patch for this.</font></tt>
<br><tt><font size=2><br>
> <br>
> -- <br>
> Kaitlin Rupert<br>
> IBM Linux Technology Center<br>
> kaitlin@linux.vnet.ibm.com<br>
> <br>
> _______________________________________________<br>
> Libvirt-cim mailing list<br>
> Libvirt-cim@redhat.com<br>
> https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/libvirt-cim<br>
</font></tt>