Guo Lian Yun wrote:
# HG changeset patch # User Guolian Yun <yunguol@cn.ibm.com> # Date 1208917544 25200 # Node ID 8dbe1fdef56378d48b230487c096a49c70b49530 # Parent 113ac4b0bb4b7b1e29f3aae585ecf7b89958f60e [TEST] fix ProcVirtualSystemSettingDataComponent InstanceID in VirtualSystemSettingDataComponent.02
This fix will result in tc fails, actually, the InstancID intends to change to "proc" instance of "0" in provider, right?
I'm not sure I understand your question.
Signed-off-by: Guolian Yun <yunguol@cn.ibm.com>
diff -r 113ac4b0bb4b -r 8dbe1fdef563 suites/libvirt-cim/cimtest/VirtualSystemSettingDataComponent/02_reverse.py --- a/suites/libvirt-cim/cimtest/VirtualSystemSettingDataComponent/02_reverse.py Tue Apr 22 15:16:28 2008 +0530 +++ b/suites/libvirt-cim/cimtest/VirtualSystemSettingDataComponent/02_reverse.py Tue Apr 22 19:25:44 2008 -0700 @@ -85,7 +85,7 @@ def assoc_values(ip, assoc_info): """ status = PASS rasd_list = { - "proc_rasd" : '%s/%s' %(test_dom,0), + "proc_rasd" : '%s/%s' %(test_dom, "proc"),
This is the correct InstanceID. You can verify using: wbemcli ein http://localhost:5988/root/virt:KVM_ProcResourceAllocationSettingData This fix works for me - does this patch cause the test case to fail for you? -- Kaitlin Rupert IBM Linux Technology Center kaitlin@linux.vnet.ibm.com