[Libvirt-cim] [PATCH 0/3] cimtest follow patch

[John Ferlan]

On 04/09/2013 10:40 AM, John Ferlan wrote:
> On 04/08/2013 06:16 AM, Wenchao Xia wrote:
>>   This is a patch follows John's 9 patches for cimtest, after it
>> cimtest should only fail 3 case on RH6.4:
>> HostSystem - 01_enum.py: FAIL
>> HostSystem - 03_hs_to_settdefcap.py: FAIL
>> VirtualSystemManagementService - 19_definenetwork_ers.py: FAIL
>>
>>   This patch is only for review and test, it may need adjust and merge
>> with John's patch, and change to author name(not root :|), please
>> do not push directly.
>>
>> root (3):
>>   test: common_util, use number to check version
>>   test: rasd use int as comparation condtion for libvirt version
>>   test: RPCS fix nfs issue
>>
>>  .../12_create_netfs_storagevolume_errs.py          |    2 +-
>>  suites/libvirt-cim/lib/XenKvmLib/common_util.py    |   32 ++++++++++++++++---
>>  suites/libvirt-cim/lib/XenKvmLib/pool.py           |    8 ++--
>>  suites/libvirt-cim/lib/XenKvmLib/rasd.py           |    7 ++--
>>  4 files changed, 36 insertions(+), 13 deletions(-)
>>
>>
> 
> While it seems the change resolves some issues I saw in my initial run,
> I think the official patch needs to describe the problem/symptom and
> resolution more clearly. In particular, is the change because cimtest
> was improperly handling the result of the "virsh -v"?  Was this only a
> rhel64 issue?
> 

Uh, duh.  Should have held off hitting send for just a few minutes.

My version on rhel64 is "0.10.2" while on my f18 system it was "1.0.3",
so naturally when comparing against "0.4.1" I can "see" why the change
was necessary.  I can also understand why this is a "new" regression
since probably the last time tests were run the virsh version was
"0.9.*" or "0.8.*"...

While I agree what you did resolves some issues - I think the change is
incomplete.  You've only changed a few places and my cscope tells me
there are 15 callers to virsh_version().

Let's see what I can come up with...

John