Damian Krzeminski wrote: > [...] > Bogdan this is in a pretty good shape now from my perspective. I do not see > any > test failures. I would be OK with taking it to mainline. Do you want to > somehow > coordinate it with preflight changes or can we go ahead to take sipXconfig > part now? > > For now i think we should take only the sipXconfig part. I tried to modify a preflight wrote in C to add soap connectivity code with gSoap in order to use the sipXconfig part, but I was not successful. I attached an archive with these files and posted a comment on the JIRA issue with comments and some description of what I've done. Maybe it could be helpful for someone who wants to write the preflight code. > I reviewed your changes and added a patch with my changes on top of it. It > changes TestDb into TestIntegration. Please do not write any more DB tests, > Integration tests are easier to write and faster to execute (no need to clean > DB, integration tests just roll back DB transactions). > > The only thing that is missing at the moment is test for > getUnregisteredDiscoveredDevices method that you just added, but it can be > added > later. BTW "unregistered" is probably not the best terminogy since it is > usually > associated with SIP registration. I think in this case you just mean > discovered > devices that are not managed by sipXconfig yet. But as I said: we can change > it > later. > > D. > I agree, "unregistered" is not the best term. Maybe we could use something like "unsaved devices".
Thanks, Bogdan _______________________________________________ sipx-dev mailing list [email protected] List Archive: http://list.sipfoundry.org/archive/sipx-dev Unsubscribe: http://list.sipfoundry.org/mailman/listinfo/sipx-dev
