>> If any of those tests fails (with some built in fault tolerance for a
>> small
>> hardware fallout rate), we stop the testing. All of that control flow
>> is governed by a control file. It sounds complex, but it's really not
>> if you build your "building blocks" carefully, and it's extremely po
On Tue, Jul 21, 2009 at 11:37 AM, David Huff wrote:
> Michael all very good comments, I specifically like the windows config
> file idea.
>
> The way I always envisioned it was something like this..
>
> The config file specifies the whole test matrix, ie all variants that
> you could run each t
On Tue, Jul 21, 2009 at 11:05 AM, Ryan Harper wrote:
> * Michael Goldish [2009-07-21 07:38]:
>>
>> - "Lucas Meneghel Rodrigues" wrote:
>>
>> > Currently we have our kvm test control file and configuration file,
>> > having them split like this makes it harder for users to edit it,
>> > let's
On 07/21/2009 08:21 PM, Martin Bligh wrote:
The advantages I see are: 1. it more closely follows the current
autotest structure/layout, 2. solves the problem of separating each test
out of the ever growing kvm_test.py and gives a sub dir of each test for
better structure (something we have been t
> The advantages I see are: 1. it more closely follows the current
> autotest structure/layout, 2. solves the problem of separating each test
> out of the ever growing kvm_test.py and gives a sub dir of each test for
> better structure (something we have been talking about) and 3. addresses
> the c
