[ 
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CLOUDSTACK-9389?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=15308037#comment-15308037
 ] 

ASF GitHub Bot commented on CLOUDSTACK-9389:
--------------------------------------------

Github user swill commented on the pull request:

    https://github.com/apache/cloudstack/pull/1563
  
    I think it is important that the test data does not need to be changed for 
our automated(ish) CI to show the tests are passing.  Right now because of size 
and speed to run the tests, a lot of us are using Tiny Linux as the template 
for testing.  I agree it should work for both, but to do that I think we will 
need to use regex in order to handle more than one expected correct result.


> [Automation ]modifying integration/smoke/test_routers_network_ops.py
> --------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>                 Key: CLOUDSTACK-9389
>                 URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CLOUDSTACK-9389
>             Project: CloudStack
>          Issue Type: Bug
>      Security Level: Public(Anyone can view this level - this is the 
> default.) 
>          Components: Automation
>            Reporter: prashant kumar mishra
>            Assignee: prashant kumar mishra
>
> Some test cases were failing due to invalid check_string , proposing 
> following modifications  
> 1-Moving check_string to test_data.py  
> 2-Since ping cmd reply is OS dependent ,for  default templates os type  
> CentOS changing check_string  from "3 packets received" to  "3 received" 
> [root@BPKxDmS ~]# ping -c 3 8.8.8.8
> PING 8.8.8.8 (8.8.8.8) 56(84) bytes of data.
> 64 bytes from 8.8.8.8: icmp_seq=1 ttl=52 time=16.9 ms
> 64 bytes from 8.8.8.8: icmp_seq=2 ttl=52 time=16.7 ms
> 64 bytes from 8.8.8.8: icmp_seq=3 ttl=52 time=17.0 ms
> --- 8.8.8.8 ping statistics ---
> 3 packets transmitted, 3 received, 0% packet loss, time 2020ms
> rtt min/avg/max/mdev = 16.720/16.896/17.015/0.196 ms



--
This message was sent by Atlassian JIRA
(v6.3.4#6332)

Reply via email to