RE: [Xen-cim] Test suite

["Szymanski, Lukasz K" <Lukasz.Szymanski@xxxxxxxxxx>]

Jim -

I am working on that association providers patch right now.

As far as generating vs. including the input files goes:

- At first pass it was easier to generate them instead of writing them
by hand.  Having said that, we now have some generated.
- Generating the files gives us some more flexibility for the future.
Each new provider/association will have to be added to the suite and we
would want to make that process as painless as possible.  Having to
craft each new provider/association file by hand may be too much of a
pain - or not.  I am not sure how many more we want to add at this
point.
- I am open to either option, just let me know what you want for the
association provider patch.  I am writing a script to generate the
files, but there may be some customization necessary as well, meaning,
the patch might actually be easier as a bunch of included files.

Luke

-----Original Message-----
From: Jim Fehlig [mailto:jfehlig@xxxxxxxxxx] 
Sent: Thursday, May 17, 2007 7:35 PM
To: Gareth S Bestor
Cc: Szymanski, Lukasz K; xen-cim@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx;
xen-cim-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: [Xen-cim] Test suite

Gareth S Bestor wrote:
>
> Sorry for the delay in responding (another 2 week business trip... 
> sigh)
>
> I agree. Seems like sblim-testsuite has some basic advantages, even in

> its current limited form.
> And whatever dependence it has on a cli helper, ie wbemcli, should be 
> minimally invasive and not too bad to remove/replace with say a 
> python/curl equivalent.
>

FYI, I committed Luke's patch today.

Luke - you correctly mentioned on today's call that 'interface tests' on
association providers should be next.  A patch for that would be nice
:-).  We'll then move on to the 'consistence tests'.

BTW, we might want to just include the input files in project instead of
generating.  I can see them diverging over time.  What do you think?

> The nice thing about having a lower-level CIM client, at least right 
> now, is that it'll allow us to actually DO DefineVS(), since non of 
> the existing tools support embedded instances (or even references as 
> arguments it seems....)
>

pywbem supports embedded instances.  E.g.

mem_rasd = pywbem.CIMInstance('Xen_MemorySettingData',
                                             
{'ResourceType':pywbem.Uint16(4),
                                             
'VirtualQuantity':pywbem.Uint64(256),
                                             
'AllocationUnits':'MegaBytes'})


I regularly use test scripts that do DefineSystem(), AddResource(), etc.
with such embedded instances :-).

Jim


_______________________________________________
Xen-cim mailing list
Xen-cim@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.xensource.com/xen-cim