[Libvirt-cim] Re: KVM on Pegasus Test Run Summary for Sep 10 2008 [ Current Source]

[Kaitlin Rupert]

>>>  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.

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