On Thu, May 26, 2022, 10:31 AM Vladimir Sementsov-Ogievskiy <
vsement...@yandex-team.ru> wrote:
> On 4/8/22 20:02, Vladimir Sementsov-Ogievskiy wrote:
> > The method is not popular, we prefer use vm.qmp() and then check
>
> Suddenly I found, that I missed a lot of existing users: in scripts, in
>
On 4/8/22 20:02, Vladimir Sementsov-Ogievskiy wrote:
The method is not popular, we prefer use vm.qmp() and then check
Suddenly I found, that I missed a lot of existing users: in scripts, in avocado
tests.
Do you prefer to rename the method to "cmd()", and change all the occurrences, or keep
On Tue, Apr 19, 2022 at 01:08:06PM -0400, John Snow wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 19, 2022, 12:42 PM Daniel P. Berrangé
> wrote:
>
> > On Fri, Apr 08, 2022 at 08:02:13PM +0300, Vladimir Sementsov-Ogievskiy
> > wrote:
> > > The method is not popular, we prefer use vm.qmp() and then check
> > > success by h
On Tue, Apr 19, 2022, 12:42 PM Daniel P. Berrangé
wrote:
> On Fri, Apr 08, 2022 at 08:02:13PM +0300, Vladimir Sementsov-Ogievskiy
> wrote:
> > The method is not popular, we prefer use vm.qmp() and then check
> > success by hand.. But that's not optimal. To simplify movement to
> > vm.command() su
On Fri, Apr 08, 2022 at 08:02:13PM +0300, Vladimir Sementsov-Ogievskiy wrote:
> The method is not popular, we prefer use vm.qmp() and then check
> success by hand.. But that's not optimal. To simplify movement to
> vm.command() support same interface improvements like in vm.qmp() and
> rename to sh
