On Mon, 15 Apr 2024 11:31:05 +0200 Paolo Abeni wrote:
> On Fri, 2024-04-12 at 16:37 -0700, Jakub Kicinski wrote:
> > +def ping_v4(cfg) -> None:
> > + if not cfg.v4:
> > + raise KsftXfailEx()
> > +
> > + cmd(f"ping -c 1 -W0.5 {cfg.ep_v4}")
> > + cmd(f"ping -c 1 -W0.5 {cfg.v4}", host=cfg.endpoint)
>
> Very minor nit, I personally find a bit more readable:
>
> cfg.endpoint.cmd()
>
> Which is already supported by the current infra, right?
>
> With both endpoint possibly remote could be:
>
> cfg.ep1.cmd()
> cfg.ep2.cmd()
As I said in the cover letter, I don't want to push us too much towards
classes. The argument format make local and local+remote tests look more
similar.
I could be wrong 🤷️
