Mailing-List: contact dev-help@cloudstack.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: dev@cloudstack.apache.org
Content-Type: multipart/alternative;
 boundary="===============0824541988219894266=="
MIME-Version: 1.0
Subject: Re: Review Request 13559: Automation: Portable IP test cases
From: "Gaurav Aradhye" <gaurav.aradhye@clogeny.com>
To: "Prasanna Santhanam" <tsp@apache.org>,
 "Murali Reddy" <muralimmreddy@gmail.com>,
 "venkata swamy babu  budumuru" <venkataswamybabu.budumuru@citrix.com>
Cc: "Gaurav Aradhye" <gaurav.aradhye@clogeny.com>,
 "cloudstack" <dev@cloudstack.apache.org>
Date: Thu, 29 Aug 2013 14:12:33 -0000
Message-ID: <20130829141233.16847.9879@reviews.apache.org>
Auto-Submitted: auto-generated
Sender: "Gaurav Aradhye" <noreply@reviews.apache.org>
References: <20130827123253.16846.74169@reviews.apache.org>
In-Reply-To: <20130827123253.16846.74169@reviews.apache.org>
Reply-To: "Gaurav Aradhye" <gaurav.aradhye@clogeny.com>

--===============0824541988219894266==
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit


> On Aug. 27, 2013, 6:02 p.m., venkata swamy babu  budumuru wrote:
> > test/integration/component/test_portable_ip.py, line 817
> > <https://reviews.apache.org/r/13559/diff/1/?file=341135#file341135line817>
> >
> >     Isn't it a better idea to check the programmed NAT rule is functioning properly?

Added call to get remoteSSHClient using the portable ip for which NAT rule is created.


> On Aug. 27, 2013, 6:02 p.m., venkata swamy babu  budumuru wrote:
> > test/integration/component/test_portable_ip.py, line 168
> > <https://reviews.apache.org/r/13559/diff/1/?file=341135#file341135line168>
> >
> >     It would be better if we prepare services dictionary for "portable_ip_range" manually on what range it should take.
> >     
> >     Current logic just increments the range by 1 and it expects the existing physical infra to be configured with that CIDR. This approach many not suite for everyone who fires this script. This is mandating the user of the scripts to have the next cidr of his public range to be configured and available for portable ip range testing.

will directly using "untagged" vlan from the list of vlans do? Can you please explain how we can manually specify the range? As the range will be different for every setup. Please correct me if I'm wrong.

Thanks.


- Gaurav


-----------------------------------------------------------
This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
https://reviews.apache.org/r/13559/#review25613
-----------------------------------------------------------


On Aug. 14, 2013, 5:05 p.m., Gaurav Aradhye wrote:
> 
> -----------------------------------------------------------
> This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
> https://reviews.apache.org/r/13559/
> -----------------------------------------------------------
> 
> (Updated Aug. 14, 2013, 5:05 p.m.)
> 
> 
> Review request for cloudstack, Murali Reddy, venkata swamy babu  budumuru, and Prasanna Santhanam.
> 
> 
> Repository: cloudstack-git
> 
> 
> Description
> -------
> 
> Adding new test cases for feature Portable IP
> 
> 
> Diffs
> -----
> 
>   test/integration/component/test_portable_ip.py PRE-CREATION 
> 
> Diff: https://reviews.apache.org/r/13559/diff/
> 
> 
> Testing
> -------
> 
> 
> Thanks,
> 
> Gaurav Aradhye
> 
>


--===============0824541988219894266==--