Re: Feature request: UDP generic protocol testing

[Jan-Henrik Haukeland]

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
> keyword.

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