4:15 a.m.
# HG changeset patch
# User Deepti B. Kalakeri<deeptik(a)linux.vnet.ibm.com>
# Date 1220346904 -19800
# Node ID f956aa699a3e3ea6df8f2d6e423ed9cf032d61c5
# Parent 946fd46b96866adaab356876f9c8bbf937f0b3d6
[TEST] Updating VSMC 01_enum.py to verify the SynchronousMethodsSupported values.
Changes
-------
1) Also modified the tc to use do_main from const.py instead of Globals.py.
2) Used print_field_error() to print the error messages.
3) Removed Globals.py.
Signed-off-by: Deepti B. Kalakeri <deeptik(a)linux.vnet.ibm.com>
diff -r 946fd46b9686 -r f956aa699a3e
suites/libvirt-cim/cimtest/VirtualSystemManagementCapabilities/01_enum.py
--- a/suites/libvirt-cim/cimtest/VirtualSystemManagementCapabilities/01_enum.py Thu Aug 28
14:07:25 2008 -0700
+++ b/suites/libvirt-cim/cimtest/VirtualSystemManagementCapabilities/01_enum.py Tue Sep 02
14:45:04 2008 +0530
@@ -23,35 +23,58 @@
#
import sys
+from sets import Set
from XenKvmLib import enumclass
-from CimTest import Globals
-from CimTest.Globals import do_main
+from CimTest.Globals import logger, CIM_ERROR_ENUMERATE
+from XenKvmLib.const import do_main
from XenKvmLib.classes import get_typed_class
+from CimTest.ReturnCodes import PASS, FAIL
+from XenKvmLib.common_util import print_field_error
sup_types=['Xen', 'KVM', 'XenFV', 'LXC']
@do_main(sup_types)
def main():
options = main.options
+ server = options.ip
+ virt = options.virt
+ cn = get_typed_class(virt, 'VirtualSystemManagementCapabilities')
+
+ # Methods which are considered as synchronous
+ # where 1 = ADD_RESOURCES , 2 = DEFINE_SYSTEM , 3 = DESTROY_SYSTEM,
+ # 4 = DESTROY_SYS_CONFIG, 5 = MOD_RESOURCE_SETTINGS,
+ # 6 = MOD_SYS_SETTINGS, 7 = RM_RESOURCES
+ sync_method_val = Set([ 1L, 2L, 3L, 5L, 6L, 7L ])
try:
key_list = ["InstanceID"]
- vsmc = enumclass.enumerate(options.ip,
+ vsmc = enumclass.enumerate(server,
"VirtualSystemManagementCapabilities",
key_list,
- options.virt)
+ virt)
except Exception:
- Globals.logger.error(Globals.CIM_ERROR_ENUMERATE,
- get_typed_class(options.virt,
'VirtualSystemManagementCapabilities'))
- return 1
-
- if len(vsmc) != 1:
- Globals.logger.error("VirtualSystemManagementCapabilities return %i
instance, excepted only 1" % len(vsmc))
- return 1
- if vsmc[0].InstanceID != "ManagementCapabilities":
- Globals.logger.error( "error result of enum
VirtualSystemManagementCapabilities")
- return 1
+ logger.error(CIM_ERROR_ENUMERATE, cn)
+ return FAIL
+ try:
+ if len(vsmc) != 1:
+ logger.error("'%s' returned '%d' instance, excepted only
1", cn, len(vsmc))
+ return FAIL
+
+ if vsmc[0].InstanceID != "ManagementCapabilities":
+ print_field_error('InstanceID', vsmc[0].InstanceID,
'ManagementCapabilities')
+ return FAIL
+ vsmc_sync_val = Set(vsmc[0].SynchronousMethodsSupported)
+ if len(vsmc_sync_val - sync_method_val) != 0:
+ print_field_error('SynchronousMethodsSupported', vsmc_sync_val,
+ sync_method_val)
+ return FAIL
+
+ except Exception, details:
+ logger.error("Exception: details %s", details)
+ return FAIL
+
+ return PASS
if __name__ == "__main__":
sys.exit(main())
7:55 p.m.
+ try:
+ if len(vsmc) != 1:
+ logger.error("'%s' returned '%d' instance, excepted
only 1", cn, len(vsmc))
This line wraps.
+ return FAIL
+
+ if vsmc[0].InstanceID != "ManagementCapabilities":
+ print_field_error('InstanceID', vsmc[0].InstanceID,
'ManagementCapabilities')
This line wraps as well.
+ return FAIL
+ vsmc_sync_val = Set(vsmc[0].SynchronousMethodsSupported)
+ if len(vsmc_sync_val - sync_method_val) != 0:
+ print_field_error('SynchronousMethodsSupported', vsmc_sync_val,
+ sync_method_val)
+ return FAIL
In addition to also checking the len, you'll want to check to make sure
the SynchronousMethodsSupported values match the values we're expecting.
--
Kaitlin Rupert
IBM Linux Technology Center
kaitlin(a)linux.vnet.ibm.com
11 a.m.
Kaitlin Rupert wrote:
>
> + try:
> + if len(vsmc) != 1:
> + logger.error("'%s' returned '%d' instance, excepted
only
> 1", cn, len(vsmc))
This line wraps.
Can I get more details here ?
> + return FAIL
> + + if vsmc[0].InstanceID != "ManagementCapabilities":
> + print_field_error('InstanceID', vsmc[0].InstanceID,
> 'ManagementCapabilities')
This line wraps as well.
> + return FAIL
>
> + vsmc_sync_val = Set(vsmc[0].SynchronousMethodsSupported)
> + if len(vsmc_sync_val - sync_method_val) != 0:
> + print_field_error('SynchronousMethodsSupported',
> vsmc_sync_val, + sync_method_val)
> + return FAIL
In addition to also checking the len, you'll want to check to make
sure the SynchronousMethodsSupported values match the values we're
expecting.
The above check len(vsmc_sync_val - sync_method_val)
1) Verifies the len
2) Also if the values in the list differ then difference will be greater
than zero which means the list values does not match.
Well, I had initially done 2 check one for verifying the len of the list
and the other for verifying the values.
But since the operation S1 - S2 did both of them I switched to the above
option.
Let me know if you still think separating the both is good then I can do so.
Thanks and Regards,
Deepti.
noon
Deepti B Kalakeri wrote:
Kaitlin Rupert wrote:
>>
>> + try:
>> + if len(vsmc) != 1:
>> + logger.error("'%s' returned '%d' instance,
excepted only
>> 1", cn, len(vsmc))
>
> This line wraps.
Can I get more details here ?
This line and the next line are both longer than 80 characters.
>
>> + return FAIL
>> + + if vsmc[0].InstanceID != "ManagementCapabilities":
>> + print_field_error('InstanceID', vsmc[0].InstanceID,
>> 'ManagementCapabilities')
>
> This line wraps as well.
>
>> + return FAIL
>>
>> + vsmc_sync_val = Set(vsmc[0].SynchronousMethodsSupported)
>> + if len(vsmc_sync_val - sync_method_val) != 0:
>> + print_field_error('SynchronousMethodsSupported',
>> vsmc_sync_val, + sync_method_val)
>> + return FAIL
>
> In addition to also checking the len, you'll want to check to make
> sure the SynchronousMethodsSupported values match the values we're
> expecting.
The above check len(vsmc_sync_val - sync_method_val)
1) Verifies the len
2) Also if the values in the list differ then difference will be greater
than zero which means the list values does not match.
Well, I had initially done 2 check one for verifying the len of the list
and the other for verifying the values.
But since the operation S1 - S2 did both of them I switched to the above
option.
Let me know if you still think separating the both is good then I can do
so.
You're correct. Sorry, I'd forgotten that you were using sets to
compare the two values. No need to break this into 2 different checks.
Thanks!
--
Kaitlin Rupert
IBM Linux Technology Center
kaitlin(a)linux.vnet.ibm.com
12:49 a.m.
Kaitlin Rupert wrote:
Deepti B Kalakeri wrote:
>
>
> Kaitlin Rupert wrote:
>>>
>>> + try:
>>> + if len(vsmc) != 1:
>>> + logger.error("'%s' returned '%d' instance,
excepted
>>> only 1", cn, len(vsmc))
>>
>> This line wraps.
> Can I get more details here ?
This line and the next line are both longer than 80 characters.
Yes, I missed aligning this to 80 columns, sent the changes for the
above today.
>>
>>> + return FAIL
>>> + + if vsmc[0].InstanceID != "ManagementCapabilities":
>>> + print_field_error('InstanceID', vsmc[0].InstanceID,
>>> 'ManagementCapabilities')
>>
>> This line wraps as well.
>>
>>> + return FAIL
>>>
>>> + vsmc_sync_val = Set(vsmc[0].SynchronousMethodsSupported)
>>> + if len(vsmc_sync_val - sync_method_val) != 0:
>>> + print_field_error('SynchronousMethodsSupported',
>>> vsmc_sync_val, + sync_method_val)
>>> + return FAIL
>>
>> In addition to also checking the len, you'll want to check to make
>> sure the SynchronousMethodsSupported values match the values we're
>> expecting.
>
> The above check len(vsmc_sync_val - sync_method_val)
> 1) Verifies the len
> 2) Also if the values in the list differ then difference will be
> greater than zero which means the list values does not match.
> Well, I had initially done 2 check one for verifying the len of the
> list and the other for verifying the values.
> But since the operation S1 - S2 did both of them I switched to the
> above option.
>
> Let me know if you still think separating the both is good then I can
> do so.
>
You're correct. Sorry, I'd forgotten that you were using sets to
compare the two values. No need to break this into 2 different checks.
Thanks!
5952
days inactive
5954
days old
4 comments
3 participants
participants (3)
-
Deepti B Kalakeri -
Deepti B. Kalakeri
-
Kaitlin Rupert