[Libvirt-cim] Re: KVM on Pegasus Test Run Summary for Sep 10 2008 [ Current Source]
Kaitlin Rupert
kaitlin at linux.vnet.ibm.com
Mon Sep 15 15:42:19 UTC 2008
Deepti B Kalakeri wrote:
>
>
> Kaitlin Rupert wrote:
>>>>> Can't we just retain the information that is supplied through
>>>>> NetRASD as it is ?
>>>>> Am, I missing something ? Can you help me proceed with the
>>>>> implementation of non-existing networkpoolname/bridgename scenario
>>>>> in 05_RAPF_err.py .
>>>>
>>>> To use cim_define(), you'll need to remove the bridge related
>>>> portion of the test. Only the network scenario is valid.
>>> I can retain the network part of the tc, but I remember we were of
>>> the opinion for keeping some of the test case to use virsh so that
>>> the providers is able to handle the information for the VS created
>>> outside using VSMS.
>>
>> Yes, I agree that some tests should retain guests defined by virsh.
>> But having guests defined by virsh is far less important. Really,
>> we've been using virsh as a crutch. I don't think we need very many
>> test cases to retain virsh defined guests.
>>
>> The purpose of the test suite is to test the providers, not to test
>> virsh. So the fewer tests that rely on using virsh to define guests
>> we have, the better the test suite is at exercising the providers.
>>
> Yes, I agree. I will keep the cim_start() for network type and update
> the tc.
>
Great, thanks!
--
Kaitlin Rupert
IBM Linux Technology Center
kaitlin at linux.vnet.ibm.com
More information about the Libvirt-cim
mailing list