On 04/09/2013 10:40 AM, John Ferlan wrote: > On 04/08/2013 06:16 AM, Wenchao Xia wrote: >> This is a patch follows John's 9 patches for cimtest, after it >> cimtest should only fail 3 case on RH6.4: >> HostSystem - 01_enum.py: FAIL >> HostSystem - 03_hs_to_settdefcap.py: FAIL >> VirtualSystemManagementService - 19_definenetwork_ers.py: FAIL >> >> This patch is only for review and test, it may need adjust and merge >> with John's patch, and change to author name(not root :|), please >> do not push directly. >> >> root (3): >> test: common_util, use number to check version >> test: rasd use int as comparation condtion for libvirt version >> test: RPCS fix nfs issue >> >> .../12_create_netfs_storagevolume_errs.py | 2 +- >> suites/libvirt-cim/lib/XenKvmLib/common_util.py | 32 >> ++++++++++++++++--- >> suites/libvirt-cim/lib/XenKvmLib/pool.py | 8 ++-- >> suites/libvirt-cim/lib/XenKvmLib/rasd.py | 7 ++-- >> 4 files changed, 36 insertions(+), 13 deletions(-) >> >> > > While it seems the change resolves some issues I saw in my initial run, > I think the official patch needs to describe the problem/symptom and > resolution more clearly. In particular, is the change because cimtest > was improperly handling the result of the "virsh -v"? Was this only a > rhel64 issue? >
Uh, duh. Should have held off hitting send for just a few minutes. My version on rhel64 is "0.10.2" while on my f18 system it was "1.0.3", so naturally when comparing against "0.4.1" I can "see" why the change was necessary. I can also understand why this is a "new" regression since probably the last time tests were run the virsh version was "0.9.*" or "0.8.*"... While I agree what you did resolves some issues - I think the change is incomplete. You've only changed a few places and my cscope tells me there are 15 callers to virsh_version(). Let's see what I can come up with... John _______________________________________________ Libvirt-cim mailing list [email protected] https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/libvirt-cim
