RFC: use PG_ComputerSystem instead of Linux_ComputerSystem
Stephen C. Tweedie
sct at redhat.com
Mon Oct 7 13:20:15 UTC 2013
Hi,
On Mon, 2013-10-07 at 10:54 +0200, Jan Safranek wrote:
> On 10/04/2013 05:49 PM, Stephen Gallagher wrote:
> >
> > Do I understand correctly that this will be effectively an
> > internal-only change (from the perspective of people consuming only
> > OpenLMI interfaces)? i.e. tests written against openlmi-storage or
> > openlmi-account wouldn't need to be updated?
>
> Good question. All SMI-S use cases start with 'Find CIM_ComputerSystem
> representing the storage system' and 'find services XYZ using UVW
> association'. In reality, I doubt anyone finds services and other useful
> objects this way - at least in our scripts we just directly enumerate
> LMI_XYZService instances, there is no need to traverse through
> CIM_ComputerSystem.
>
> If we take our scripts as example usage, the change to PG_ComputerSystem
> won't break anything.
It should not break any existing functionality, but I think it *will*
break tests which compare the exact class name; I had a quick search in
the storage tests and came up with
# cfg must return default values
self.assertEqual(cfg.namespace, "root/cimv2")
self.assertEqual(cfg.system_class_name, "Linux_ComputerSystem")
self.assertEqual(cfg.system_name, socket.getfqdn())
in test/unit/config/test_unit_config.py.
I can imagine there may be other places too, so let's make sure we
update these all at the same time.
Thanks,
Stephen
More information about the openlmi-devel
mailing list