----- "Chen Cao" <kcao@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Wed, Aug 12, 2009 at 07:29:25AM -0400, Michael Goldish wrote: > > > > ----- "Chen Cao" <kcao@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > > On Wed, Aug 12, 2009 at 05:44:34AM -0400, Michael Goldish wrote: > > > > > > > > ----- "Chen Cao" <kcao@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > > > > > > On Tue, Aug 11, 2009 at 03:10:44PM +0300, Michael Goldish > wrote: > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Michael Goldish <mgoldish@xxxxxxxxxx> > > > > > > --- > > > > > > client/tests/kvm/kvm_tests.cfg.sample | 12 +++++++++++- > > > > > > 1 files changed, 11 insertions(+), 1 deletions(-) > > > > > > > > > > > > diff --git a/client/tests/kvm/kvm_tests.cfg.sample > > > > > b/client/tests/kvm/kvm_tests.cfg.sample > > > > > > index 12e907b..05a1ca7 100644 > > > > > > --- a/client/tests/kvm/kvm_tests.cfg.sample > > > > > > +++ b/client/tests/kvm/kvm_tests.cfg.sample > > > > > > @@ -126,6 +126,16 @@ variants: > > > > > > kill_vm_gracefully = no > > > > > > extra_params += " -snapshot" > > > > > > > > > > > > + - autoit: install setup > > > > > > + type = autoit > > > > > > + cdrom = windows/autoit.iso > > > > > I am wondering what is the advantage of using .iso to store > the > > > > > binary > > > > > files. I think it might be hard to maintain the > (scripts/binary) > > > > > files. > > > > > is it possible to pass a directory to run_autoit()? > > > > > > > > - I don't think it's too much trouble to maintain one big ISO > that > > > > will serve all Windows tests. I think we should start > > > documenting > > > > its contents in the wiki. > > > > (Currently, by default, each test that requires a binary uses > a > > > > different ISO file (rss.iso, vlc.iso, autoit.iso) but I think > > > it's > > > > a good idea to put everything in a single ISO.) > > > > > > > if the autoit scripts are changed, the iso has to be updated > > > everytime > > > before testing, have you already got a good solution for this? > > > > The AutoIt test already sends the scripts to the guest at runtime. > > Only the binaries need to be in an ISO. > > The method of sending the scripts is slightly hackish (using echo), > > but in my opinion it is robust and I don't expect it to cause any > > trouble. > > it seems that this testcase cannot handle more one one .au3 files. > and i think it quite possible that there are testcases that require > two or more .au3 files, for reusing code or some other reasons. OK, that makes sense. I'll send a patch that lets users specify additional files to send in a parameter named 'autoit_script_deps' or something like that. In any case, there's plenty that can be done with single file scripts, and I hope to see us get to the point where we actually need the multi- file functionality. We still have a long way to go from the sample notepad1.au3 script. > > > > > > - qemu doesn't directly read from directories, as far as I > know. > > > > It requires an image file (ISO). > > > > > > > > - We currently don't support sending files to all Windows > guests. > > > > (We have no solution for Vista and 2008, which are quite > > > important, > > > > and the solution I'm currently aiming for is adding > send/receive > > > > functionality to rss.exe.) > > > > > > > > > > + autoit_binary = D:\AutoIt3.exe > > > > > > + autoit_script_timeout = 600 > > > > > > + autoit_script_params = > > > > > > + variants: > > > > > > + - notepad: > > > > > > + autoit_script = autoit/notepad1.au3 > > > > > > +... blahblah... > > > > > > > > > > Besides, I think we may use staf framework to send command to > MS > > > > > Windows > > > > > to run autoit scripts, it would be easier to control the > status > > > of > > > > > the > > > > > autoit process. > > > > > > > > What advantages does STAF have? I don't think we lack control > over > > > the > > > > AutoIt process, especially since by default, rss.exe kills all > > > processes > > > > (AutoIt in this case) started by a session when that session > exits. > > > > This can also be done manually, in case rss.exe isn't used, but > I > > > left > > > > that to a future patch. > > > > > > > > STAF is non-interactive, which means working with it will be > > > different > > > > from working with SSH, Telnet or rss.exe. Do you suggest that > we > > > use > > > > STAF for everything, or just for the AutoIt tests? > > > > Using it for everything means we wouldn't have shell > interactivity; > > > > using it for AutoIt makes sense only if STAF is really that > much > > > better > > > > for AutoIt tests than regular interactive shells. > > > > > > > I meant STAF for AutoIt only. > > > An advanced rss.exe may be the ultimate solution for MS Windows, > > > and life would be much easier. > > > > > > but before that, we may also use some other tools to send file to > > > guests, > > > and STAF to control the autoit tests. we just need to launch the > test > > > and query the status, STAF is enough. > > > > Everything you mentioned is already being done using rss.exe, > except > > for sending binaries to the guest. > > The AutoIt test sends the script, launches it and queries the exit > > status. > > I can see why STAF is enough to control the tests, I just don't see > how > > it is better. > > > > Since there is no further demand, I cannot tell which is better now. > for now, we do no need to speed time to maintain STAF, while we can > get > more features, if needed, with rss.exe. However, they are just > auxiliary > tools, and, as a user, i just choose the one that makes things run. > > And, Thank you for the detailed explaination. > > > Regards, > > Cao, Chen > 2009/08/13 -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe kvm" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
