On Monday 11 Feb 2013 01:13:24 you wrote: > While I agree that the preseeds are untested, I don't agree that in this > particular scenario tested code would have helped as your comment seems to > imply. The reason of this bug/branch is far from being unstested or, is > possibility of discovery is far from being that case. > > This is present due to the implementation differences between iLO versions > (which is this case applies for 1.X and 2.X), and which differs from the > latest 3.X. > > Now, in favor of having things like this tested, you would either have to > test it in different proper hardware, or simulate the implementations to > perform the accurate tests.
I wasn't commenting about this particular scenario; it is indeed an unfortunate bug. However it's not an excuse to not have test coverage. Would could easily have prevented bug 1103716, for example, with proper test coverage. We don't need to test in real hardware situations (that's what QA is for), we just need unit tests to make sure the preseeds are not broken in stupid ways. -- https://code.launchpad.net/~andreserl/maas/ipmi_usercreation_ilo_versions/+merge/147460 Your team MAAS Maintainers is requested to review the proposed merge of lp:~andreserl/maas/ipmi_usercreation_ilo_versions into lp:maas/1.2. _______________________________________________ Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~launchpad-reviewers Post to : launchpad-reviewers@lists.launchpad.net Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~launchpad-reviewers More help : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp
