On Fri, Jun 24, 2016 at 12:42:03PM -0400, Andrew Cagney wrote: > On 24 June 2016 at 11:43, Antony Antony <[email protected]> wrote: > > additional run scripts would be nice to have. > > More than just nice. For instance: > > - west brings up a connection > - east triggers a child-sa > > > Some minor comments about script naming. > > I think it would be nicer if the name was <nn>-<host>run.sh > > the current scripts are <host>(init|run).sh (eastinit.sh). Having > > eastining.sh and run1east.sh could be confusing. > > > > Also if we do this ideally rename the current (west|road|north)run.sh to > > 01-westrun.sh > > Yes, I think the existing scripts can be renamed safely. Their names > do not appear in the output, and that would work. > > My reason for putting run* first was to accommodate: > > init.sh -- optional, run across all domains; probably just runs swan-prep > runNN<domain>.sh > teardown.sh -- replace final.sh, optional run across all domains >
sounds like too many changes at once. it could end up with complications! teardown.sh sounds like final.sh > however, current separation into *init*.sh and *run*.sh is very artificial: > - init scripts do stuff that arguably belongs in run > - the init script order is always: nic, east, west so might as well > spell that out > > so just <nn>-<domain>.sh or <nn><domain>.sh is sufficwwient. Leave *init.sh as it is. Add support <nn>-<domain>.sh (nn >= 01) is a good step in the right direction. *init.sh will give indication which hosts are involved in the test. Create new tests with that. Once happy with this we could migrate old tests. -antony _______________________________________________ Swan-dev mailing list [email protected] https://lists.libreswan.org/mailman/listinfo/swan-dev
