On Fri, Sep 14, 2012 at 09:49:29AM -0600, Eric Blake wrote:
> On 09/14/2012 09:20 AM, Daniel P. Berrange wrote:
> > From: "Daniel P. Berrange" <berrange@xxxxxxxxxx>
> >
> > Several test cases were mistakenly raising errors due to the
> > QEMU_CAPS_KVM flag being missed.
> > ---
> > tests/qemuxml2argvtest.c | 6 +++---
> > 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
> >
>
> > +++ b/tests/qemuxml2argvtest.c
> > @@ -342,7 +342,7 @@ mymain(void)
> > DO_TEST("minimal", QEMU_CAPS_NAME);
> > DO_TEST("minimal-s390", QEMU_CAPS_NAME);
> > DO_TEST("machine-aliases1", NONE);
> > - DO_TEST_ERROR("machine-aliases2", NONE);
> > + DO_TEST("machine-aliases2", QEMU_CAPS_KVM);
>
> Should we keep both runs, to prove that the capability makes the
> difference? That is, add a new line, rather than replacing an existing
> line.
No the old code was just completely bogus, based on bugs
previously introduced in the test suite, since this particular
case was first written.
Daniel
--
|: http://berrange.com -o- http://www.flickr.com/photos/dberrange/ :|
|: http://libvirt.org -o- http://virt-manager.org :|
|: http://autobuild.org -o- http://search.cpan.org/~danberr/ :|
|: http://entangle-photo.org -o- http://live.gnome.org/gtk-vnc :|
--
libvir-list mailing list
libvir-list@xxxxxxxxxx
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/libvir-list