Hi, I've updated baremetal-4.2 branch, added integration test for some of baremetal related APIs, also fixed a bunch of baremetal API issues exposed by the testing.
Thanks! --Sheng On Wed, Jun 19, 2013 at 11:41 AM, Chip Childers <chip.child...@sungard.com>wrote: > On Wed, Jun 19, 2013 at 11:36:11AM -0700, Sheng Yang wrote: > > On Wed, Jun 19, 2013 at 11:24 AM, Chip Childers > > <chip.child...@sungard.com>wrote: > > > > > On Wed, Jun 19, 2013 at 11:00:33AM -0700, Sheng Yang wrote: > > > > Hi, > > > > > > > > I've created the https://reviews.apache.org/r/11977/ for review. > The > > > > branch re-enabled the baremetal for master. And all major bugs are > > > cleaned. > > > > > > > > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CLOUDSTACK-1610 > > > > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CLOUDSTACK-1618 > > > > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CLOUDSTACK-1614 > > > > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CLOUDSTACK-1440 > > > > > > > > In fact it's not a feature merge, because the code is already in > MASTER > > > > ready. We just disable it due to stability problem of 4.1 release. > Now > > > I've > > > > tried to enable it, and the changeset is very small, mostly just > revert > > > the > > > > old disabling baremetal codes, and fix some issues with introducing > other > > > > new features. Here is the summary: > > > > > > [snip] > > > > > > So David's standing veto was because of this comment (from him): > > > > > > "Baremetal seems to be suffering from a significant lack of unit tests > > > and integration tests for marvin to consume. Let's get those in place > > > before we consider re-enabling this." > > > > > > If I remember correctly, the reason that master has the code in it, is > > > specifically because we decided that disabling the feature was easier > to > > > honor the veto than reverting all of the changes. > > > > > > That being said, have we addressed the original veto's concerns? > > > > > > > Not yet. I didn't realize it's vetoed due to this. Let me see what can I > do > > about it. > > Awesome. Thanks Sheng! > > > > > In fact the above bugs cannot be detected for unit test or marvin test(I > > even not sure if they're valid bugs or not, but at that time Frank is on > > vacation and nobody took a look at these then decided disable the > feature, > > and after I re-enabled them, everything works fine for me). > > Yeah, I think that the bugs were just in need of triage. The bugs > themselves weren't the major issue (although they were concerning), as > much as test coverage at either (or both) unit or integration levels. > > -chip >
