From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Lucas Meneghel Rodrigues Subject: Re: [Autotest] [Autotest PATCH] KVM-test: Add a subtest image_copy Date: Wed, 27 Jan 2010 09:11:56 -0200 Message-ID: <1264590716.2621.2.camel@localhost.localdomain> References: <1262748720-11385-1-git-send-email-yzhou@redhat.com> <1264521849.2316.47.camel@localhost.localdomain> <20100127034308.GA2301@aFu.nay.redhat.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: autotest@test.kernel.org, kvm@vger.kernel.org, Lawrence Lim , Michael Goldish To: Yolkfull Chow Return-path: Received: from mx1.redhat.com ([209.132.183.28]:32695 "EHLO mx1.redhat.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1754348Ab0A0LMB (ORCPT ); Wed, 27 Jan 2010 06:12:01 -0500 In-Reply-To: <20100127034308.GA2301@aFu.nay.redhat.com> Sender: kvm-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On Wed, 2010-01-27 at 11:43 +0800, Yolkfull Chow wrote: > On Tue, Jan 26, 2010 at 02:04:09PM -0200, Lucas Meneghel Rodrigues wrote: > > Yolkfull, I am copying Michael and Lawrence on the e-mail so they can > > comment on the points I am going to present. > > Lucas, firstly thank you very much for addressing your viewpoints and the > coding/logical suggestions. Most of them are reasonable and appreciated > except that I also have an improvidence about point 3): > > Your idea on executing image_copy as a backup of unattended_install is good. > But I think we could also seperate 'unattended_install' from test set of > "functional testing" and encapsulate it into "Installation testing" set. > In this way the following functional test cases will not be affected by > failed installation tests. > > What do you think about this? I believe this could be implemented by simply removing the dependency. However, if *no* install test succeed whatsoever, then we don't have any way to perform the subsequent tests. So I don't know how to implement this idea. Please explain me how that encapsulation would work.