Re: [Libvirt-cim] [PATCH] [TEST] change AllocationCapabilities expected error string
zli(a)linux.vnet.ibm.com wrote:
# HG changeset patch
# User Zhengang Li <lizg(a)cn.ibm.com>
# Date 1207728305 25200
# Node ID be122f36acaa24527bdc6339ed16b80526b5fcb7
# Parent f58194a3271fe20b19894c9f3472164316e1ee4c
[TEST] change AllocationCapabilities expected error string
On FC8 it was 'Instance not found'. Now FC9 expects 'Requested
Object could not be found'. This is only a string returned from
CIMOM, I'm changing this to a word used in both messages. What
we really expect is the CIM_ERR_NOT_FOUND. The rc code are identical
on FC8 and FC9.
This fixes AllocationCapabilities.02 failures on a pegasus 2.7 CIMOM.
Signed-off-by: Zhengang Li <lizg(a)cn.ibm.com>
diff -r f58194a3271f -r be122f36acaa
suites/libvirt-cim/cimtest/AllocationCapabilities/02_alloccap_gi_errs.py
--- a/suites/libvirt-cim/cimtest/AllocationCapabilities/02_alloccap_gi_errs.py Wed Apr 09
00:57:03 2008 -0700
+++ b/suites/libvirt-cim/cimtest/AllocationCapabilities/02_alloccap_gi_errs.py Wed Apr 09
01:05:05 2008 -0700
@@ -73,7 +73,7 @@
"invalid_instid_keyname" : { 'rc' :
pywbem.CIM_ERR_FAILED, \
'desc' : 'No InstanceID
specified' }, \
"invalid_instid_keyvalue" : { 'rc' :
pywbem.CIM_ERR_NOT_FOUND, \
- 'desc' : 'Instance not
found' }
+ 'desc' : 'found' }
}
def conf_file():
"""
While this makes the test pass, I think there's potential for a false
positive here. Some providers return messages like:
"System Name not found" and "CreationClassName not found."
Using just "found" would cause the test to pass in both cases, even
though we really only want to pass if we get "System Name not found."
A suggestion is to have the ability to check multiple descriptions. So
then you could check against the expected error messages for both F8 and F9.
The hope here is that the error messages don't change often. Thoughts?
--
Kaitlin Rupert
IBM Linux Technology Center
kaitlin(a)linux.vnet.ibm.com