Re: [Libvirt-cim] [PATCH] [TEST] #2 Fix potiential false positive in AC 01
> +def enum_pools_and_ac(ip, virt, cn):
> + pools = {}
> + ac = []
> +
> + pt = ['MemoryPool', 'ProcessorPool', 'DiskPool',
'NetworkPool']
> +
> + try:
> + key = ["InstanceID"]
> + ac = enumclass.enumerate(ip, cn, key, virt)
> +
> + for p in pt:
> + enum_list = enumclass.enumerate(ip, p, key, virt)
> +
> + if len(enum_list) < 1:
> + logger.error("%s did not return any instances" % p)
> + return pools, ac +
> + for pool in enum_list:
> + pools[pool.InstanceID] = pool +
> + except Exception, details:
> + logger.error(CIM_ERROR_ENUMERATE, cn)
> + logger.error(details)
> + return pools, ac +
> + if len(ac) != len(pools):
> + logger.error("%s returned %s instances, expected %s" % (cn,
> len(ac), + len(pools)))
> + return pools, ac +
> enum_pools_and_ac(options.ip, options.virt, cn)
> + if len(pools) < 1:
> + cleanup_restore(options.ip, options.virt)
> + destroy_netpool(options.ip, options.virt, test_network)
> return FAIL
>
I think the check used in the prev patch, len(ac) != len(pools) is
better
This check is still here - it's included in the enum_pools_and_ac()
function. See the piece quoted above.
It can be moved outside of this function to help with clarity.
and also we should be checking len(ac) != 4 to make sure that AC
values == enum of MemoryPool + ProcessorPool + DiskPool +
NetworkPool.
Any specific reason for not doing this ?
otherwise +1 for me.
You can't guarantee 4 pools. The test creates a disk pool and a network
pool, but it's possible for additional net and disk pools to exist on
the system. That's why you want to check len(ac) != len(pools).
--
Kaitlin Rupert
IBM Linux Technology Center
kaitlin(a)linux.vnet.ibm.com