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

[Kaitlin Rupert]

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