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

[Deepti B Kalakeri]

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.

Thanks and Regards,
Deepti.