On Mon, 2024-04-15 at 07:33 -0700, Jakub Kicinski wrote:
> 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 guess it's a matter of personal preferences. I know mine are usually
quite twisted ;)
I'm fine with either syntax.
Cheers,
Paolo
