On Mon, 2005-11-28 at 18:32 +0100, Thomas Anders wrote: > Wes Hardaker wrote: > > I think it's probably rather important that the agent be walkable from > > start to end without hitting a problem. *That* is what should be > > tested by a complete walk (and not looking for certain data).
> does it mean you're actually supporting the existing > T200snmpv2cwalkall? Yes - I believe that's exactly what Wes means. It's a technique known informally as "ganging up on Dave" :-) OK - I concede. The full walk test can stay. Though I'd probably prefer to see it as the culmination of a series of individual sub-tree tests. Something like: - does the system group work properly? - does the ip group work properly? - <etc, etc> - does the whatever-the-last-group-is work properly? - does a full walk work properly? But discussion of that can wait until the other bits are in place. Dave ------------------------------------------------------- This SF.net email is sponsored by: Splunk Inc. Do you grep through log files for problems? Stop! Download the new AJAX search engine that makes searching your log files as easy as surfing the web. DOWNLOAD SPLUNK! http://ads.osdn.com/?ad_id=7637&alloc_id=16865&op=click _______________________________________________ Net-snmp-coders mailing list Net-snmp-coders@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/net-snmp-coders
