On Oct. 23, 2013, 2:38 p.m., Gaurav Aradhye wrote: > > The naming of the tests should be improved. test_01/02/03 doesn't tell much > > about the test. Also is the ordering strictly required? Can I reorder the > > tests and still expect the tests to pass? If not, we should remove the 01 , > > 02 , 03 in the tests.
Yes the tests can be reordered and run successfully. I will change the test names. The only reason to keep such test names was to avoid long test names which tell the same thing which is written in the comments (Steps and validation steps), 01,02,03 does not stand for any ordering. - Gaurav ----------------------------------------------------------- This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit: https://reviews.apache.org/r/14319/#review27372 ----------------------------------------------------------- On Oct. 23, 2013, 2:31 p.m., Gaurav Aradhye wrote: > > ----------------------------------------------------------- > This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit: > https://reviews.apache.org/r/14319/ > ----------------------------------------------------------- > > (Updated Oct. 23, 2013, 2:31 p.m.) > > > Review request for cloudstack, bharat kumar and sanjeev n. > > > Repository: cloudstack-git > > > Description > ------- > > Adding Automation test cases for feature - Non Contiguous VLAN ranges > CLOUDSTACk 2238. > > > Diffs > ----- > > test/integration/component/test_non_contiguous_vlan.py PRE-CREATION > > Diff: https://reviews.apache.org/r/14319/diff/ > > > Testing > ------- > > Tested locally on XenServer Setup > > Log: > > test_01 (test_non_contiguous_vlan.TestNonContiguousVLANRanges) ... ok > test_02 (test_non_contiguous_vlan.TestNonContiguousVLANRanges) ... ok > test_03 (test_non_contiguous_vlan.TestNonContiguousVLANRanges) ... ok > test_04 (test_non_contiguous_vlan.TestNonContiguousVLANRanges) ... ok > test_05 (test_non_contiguous_vlan.TestNonContiguousVLANRanges) ... ok > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > Ran 5 tests in 22.387s > > OK > > > Thanks, > > Gaurav Aradhye > >
