[Libvirt-cim] libvirt-cim rpm for Fedora 9 versus recent provider repository

[Kaitlin Rupert]

Dan Smith wrote:
> DV> Basically the Fedora-9 tree is frozen, but you should be able to
> DV> push update for it after it has been released
> 
> Right, which I definitely plan to do.  I'd like the ability to look at
> a test report and see "X failures that have been fixed in the tree but
> are not fixed on the current platform".  That will help indicate when
> a refresh to Fedora or a new release is a good idea.  Might be a bit
> of a lofty goal, though :)
> 

For future releases, would it be a good idea to archive the current 
state of the cimtest tree at the same time a release is snapped of 
libvirt-cim?  This would allow us to preserve the state of the tests and 
tie them to a given release.

 > This is a good point.  The Fedora 9 RPM has been unchanged for a while
 > now, so none of the changes that you mention are included.  I think
 > that the test development should proceed to track the libvirt-cim
 > development tree, but perhaps there is a way that we can map FAIL to
 > XFAIL for older versions of the provider.

 > Does anyone have a suggestion for a reasonable way we could do this?

Have the test suite check for the libvirt-cim rpm.  If it exists, grab 
version.  Otherwise, assume the providers are the most recent version 
upstream.

If a test case needs to be updated due to a provider behavior change, 
use an if condition based on the rpm version (or lack there of) to 
determine the pass/fail/xfail behavior.

It's not a very elegant idea, but something along these lines might 
work.  And of course, such an idea wouldn't work on environments that 
don't support rpm / that we currently don't build rpms for.

-- 
Kaitlin Rupert
IBM Linux Technology Center
kaitlin at linux.vnet.ibm.com