15 Apr
2024
15 Apr
'24
4:09 p.m.
On Mon, 2024-04-15 at 07:33 -0700, Jakub Kicinski wrote:
On Mon, 15 Apr 2024 11:31:05 +0200 Paolo Abeni wrote:
On Fri, 2024-04-12 at 16:37 -0700, Jakub Kicinski wrote:
+def ping_v4(cfg) -> None:
- if not cfg.v4:
raise KsftXfailEx()- cmd(f"ping -c 1 -W0.5 {cfg.ep_v4}")
- cmd(f"ping -c 1 -W0.5 {cfg.v4}", host=cfg.endpoint)
Very minor nit, I personally find a bit more readable:
cfg.endpoint.cmd()
Which is already supported by the current infra, right?
With both endpoint possibly remote could be:
cfg.ep1.cmd() cfg.ep2.cmd()
As I said in the cover letter, I don't want to push us too much towards classes. The argument format make local and local+remote tests look more similar.
I guess it's a matter of personal preferences. I know mine are usually quite twisted ;)
I'm fine with either syntax.
Cheers,
Paolo