Dan Smith wrote:
KR> However, a provider can fail for a number of reasons and return the KR> same error code for each one. Unfortunately (in the case anyway), CIM KR> has such a small subset of return codes. So you can't accurately KR> confirm that the test failed for the proper reason.
Well, we can return provider-specific error codes in addition to the CIM-standard ones. We could conceivably add those into places where we need a more information about a particular failure case.
Also, if we're not expecting an error, we should be sure to FAIL if the return is not CMPI_RC_OK, and then try to resolve the error code/message to a specific case if possible.
That would be useful, but also sounds like a fair bit of work. I see how it'd be useful for testing, but I'm not sure how useful it is for a regular consumer. I suppose for error reporting, users would then be able to supply the provider specific error code, which would be more meaningful to use than CMPI_RC_ERR_FAILED. -- Kaitlin Rupert IBM Linux Technology Center kaitlin@linux.vnet.ibm.com