Guo Lian Yun wrote: > # HG changeset patch > # User Guolian Yun <yunguol(a)cn.ibm.com&gt; > # 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(a)cn.ibm.com&gt; > > 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

-- Kaitlin Rupert IBM Linux Technology Center kaitlin(a)linux.vnet.ibm.com _______________________________________________ Libvirt-cim mailing list Libvirt-cim(a)redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/libvirt-cim