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

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.