On 04/09/2013 10:40 AM, John Ferlan wrote:
On 04/08/2013 06:16 AM, Wenchao Xia wrote:
> This is a patch follows John's 9 patches for cimtest, after it
> cimtest should only fail 3 case on RH6.4:
> HostSystem - 01_enum.py: FAIL
> HostSystem - 03_hs_to_settdefcap.py: FAIL
> VirtualSystemManagementService - 19_definenetwork_ers.py: FAIL
>
> This patch is only for review and test, it may need adjust and merge
> with John's patch, and change to author name(not root :|), please
> do not push directly.
>
> root (3):
> test: common_util, use number to check version
> test: rasd use int as comparation condtion for libvirt version
> test: RPCS fix nfs issue
>
> .../12_create_netfs_storagevolume_errs.py | 2 +-
> suites/libvirt-cim/lib/XenKvmLib/common_util.py | 32 ++++++++++++++++---
> suites/libvirt-cim/lib/XenKvmLib/pool.py | 8 ++--
> suites/libvirt-cim/lib/XenKvmLib/rasd.py | 7 ++--
> 4 files changed, 36 insertions(+), 13 deletions(-)
>
>
While it seems the change resolves some issues I saw in my initial run,
I think the official patch needs to describe the problem/symptom and
resolution more clearly. In particular, is the change because cimtest
was improperly handling the result of the "virsh -v"? Was this only a
rhel64 issue?
Uh, duh. Should have held off hitting send for just a few minutes.
My version on rhel64 is "0.10.2" while on my f18 system it was
"1.0.3",
so naturally when comparing against "0.4.1" I can "see" why the
change
was necessary. I can also understand why this is a "new" regression
since probably the last time tests were run the virsh version was
"0.9.*" or "0.8.*"...
While I agree what you did resolves some issues - I think the change is
incomplete. You've only changed a few places and my cscope tells me
there are 15 callers to virsh_version().
Let's see what I can come up with...
John