hi~ On 05/28/2012 02:38 PM, Alex Jia wrote: > On 05/25/2012 09:52 PM, Chris Evich wrote: >> On 05/25/2012 06:26 AM, Alex Jia wrote: >>> IMHO, we should reuse virsh_dumpxml() then give a optional 'to_file' >>> parameter rather than defining many similar function, for example, >>> >>> def virsh_dumpxml(name, to_file="", uri="") >>> if to_file: >>> cmd = "dumpxml %s> %s" % (name, to_file) >>> else: >>> cmd = "dumpxml %s" % name >>> >>> return virsh_cmd(cmd, uri) >> >> I like this idea. >> >>> >>> And then I saw each virsh cmd need to deal with exception case, >>> we should do it in virsh_cmd() to simplify codes. >> >> I don't quite understand your meaning here, could you explain further? >> > virsh_cmd() is a common function and will run all of virsh cmds by > utils.run() then > it just returns stdout now, a caller will do result check and catch a error > further, > if we can put these work in virsh_cmd(), I think it will simplify our codes. > I thought about this before.
The problem here is that users cannot judge if the virsh command runs correctly through stdout returned by virsh_cmd(). So we make virsh_cmd() raise an exception when the command is wrong. My idea was catching and handling exception in virsh_cmd(), and making virsh_cmd() return two values: command's exit status and stdout. In this way, users don't need to handle exceptions, and they are able to know the command is wrong with exit status. But if we do so, wherever virsh_cmd() is called should be modified. It will be a large number of work. I am still thinking about it. There may be something coincident with your idea. :) -- Best Regards, Tang chen _______________________________________________ Autotest mailing list Autotest@test.kernel.org http://test.kernel.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/autotest
