[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: Feature request: UDP generic protocol testing

From: Jan-Henrik Haukeland
Subject: Re: Feature request: UDP generic protocol testing
Date: Fri, 28 Oct 2005 19:18:07 +0200

On 28. okt. 2005, at 04.21, Alex Black wrote:

Hi Jan-Henrik, thanks for the response.

one way to achieve this is to scope tests in
blocks using {}, just like a standard programming language.

That looks good, does this exist today in 4.6 ? Or are you proposing
using test scoping to make tests dependent on other tests?
Test scoping via { and } sounds decent.

It may be a useful idea, we'll have to think about this more. No, this does not exist and I was just thinking aloud.

An alternate idea would be to do
something like you have for service dependencies, using the depends

I think I like the parenthesis idea better :) IMHO the syntax is easier and more recognizable.

One other question. I want to be able to set a general alert email, 'set alert foo1', and then on each test I would like to optionally be able to override it, with 'alert foo2', but I've found in that cases emails get
sent to both foo1 and foo2. Is that the correct behaviour?

Yes, thats how the alert system is programmed now. The only overriding is if alert foo1 was defined in a check-entry, then only the check-entry alert is sent to foo1. I agree that it is be more logical if a check-entry override the global list. It's easy to change this, but it will affect backward compatibility. What do others think? Should this be changed?

Jan-Henrik Haukeland
Mobil +47 97141255

reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]