On Tue, Jun 25, 2013 at 03:45:47PM +0200, Michal Privoznik wrote:
> On 25.06.2013 12:00, Daniel P. Berrange wrote:
> >> +#define DO_TEST(file, dev, fial, ...) \
> >> > + do { \
> >> > + const char *my_mon[] = { __VA_ARGS__, NULL}; \
> >> > + struct qemuHotplugTestData data = \
> >> > + {.domain_filename = file, .device_filename = dev, .fail = fial, \
> >> > + .mon = my_mon}; \
> >> > + if (virtTestRun(#file, 1, testQemuHotplug, &data) < 0) \
> >> > + ret = -1; \
> >> > + } while (0)
> > What's with the 'fail' parameter you're passing across test cases.
> > AFAICT, no test needs to be aware of the fail status of any earlier
> > test. You're re-creating the fake monitor for each test case so
> > no state is shared between tests. Just setting the 'ret = -1' here
> > is sufficient
> >
>
> The parameter is there to tell the testQemuHotplug if error is expected
> or not. For instance, changing a listen address is expected to fail.
> Hence, qemuDomainChangeGraphics() called from the test function must
> return -1. However, the test function knows the error is expected, so it
> must return 0. This is controlled by 'fial'. I think we have similar
> approach elsewhere in the test suite.
Oh I see. So its really an "expectFail" flag.
ACK to the original patch.
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